Wednesday, July 11, 2007








I can not described myself this terrible crime. How in the world these people were thinking putting an unprotected child without food, Hygiene and, water in those kind of conditions for months and thinking that he will survive?
I am shock to see this happen in America when we are bragging about family Values, dignity, and freedom.

Viva Tancredo. The blind American man who see only one issue American Citizens are concern is Undocumented Immigration. just happens in front of your nose. Shame on you Tommy. You have a lot of work to do before you go to our neighbors house.What you were claimed or stated that we importing these values from Third world people to our Country or we teach them to do so on their own Country?
See the report by Howard Pankratz from Denver Post

how this people make such Starved boy suffered for months, cops told
Court documents paint a horrific picture: Chandler, 7, dying in a closet; his brother, 5, afraid to help.


Jon Phillips walks into Denver County Court in Denver Monday May 14, 2007. George Kochaniec, pool)The 7-year-old Denver boy who died of starvation spent his last weeks in extraordinary deprivation, living largely in a closet without food, water and basic hygiene, according to unsealed court documents.

Chandler Grafner's half brother
, Dominick Phillips, detailed the horrific conditions for investigators, the documents say. Dominick, 5, said that his father, Jon Phillips, and Phillips' common-law wife, Sarah Berry, would place Chandler in the closet for days on end whenever he was "bad."

They also wouldn't let him use the bathroom. Chandler instead would defecate on his hands and soil the walls, further angering Phillips and Berry.

"The parents would then take (Chandler) out of the closet and give him

Sarah Berry walks into court Monday, May 14, 2007, in Denver. (AP | George Kochaniec, pool)the 'mean shower' before putting him back into the closet." The affidavit did not describe what the "mean shower" entailed. Phillips, 26, and Berry, 22, were charged in May with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of child abuse resulting in death. One of the first-degree murder charges alleges they caused the death of a child under 12 and the second that they committed murder after deliberation. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for today.

Darren Cantor, Phillips' lawyer, said he couldn't comment on any of the allegations. Phillips, who had no biological connection to Chandler, had voluntarily taken custody of the boy in January after a court removed Chandler from his mother, who was Phillips' former girlfriend.
Punished for taking food. Where are those values

But while Phillips had told a judge that he wanted Chandler, Dominick said Phillips frequently called Chandler "bad," and his father and mother would put Chandler "into the closet and leave him there all day and night," Denver detective Dave Neil wrote in a police probable-cause statement.

Dominick said that Phillips and Berry had stopped feeding him and Chandler lunches weeks before Chandler died on May 6.
Investigators said in the document that authorities have pictures from January - the last time social services visited the home - showing Chandler in good health. There was no explanation of why his treatment allegedly changed.
In the spring, the only food Dominick received was Cap'n Crunch cereal in the morning and dinner at night, according to Neil. Dominick said the best dinner was tacos, but he would get one taco. He said if he wanted more food, he would receive oatmeal.
Dominick told investigators that Chandler would often not receive any food. If he complained, the adults would give him some oatmeal "but he would have to stay in the closet to eat it," the document alleges.

Dominick said that on a few occasions his older sibling would ask him to get him something to eat, but Dominick refused because he was afraid.
The child claimed the adults placed Chandler in the closet for the last time on Friday, May 4, for taking food from the kitchen. He was left there until Sunday, May 6, the day he died.
Dominick said his father removed Chandler from the closet, carried him to the middle of the living room and placed him on the floor, the documents say. Then the father removed a box, believed to be a litter box that Chandler was forced to use. A curtain was also removed from the closet and the items were placed in a Dumpster. Phillips and Berry changed Chandler's clothes before calling 911, Neil wrote.

According to Neil, dispatchers first were alerted to Chandler's situation at 2:57 p.m. on May 6. Berry told a dispatcher that Chandler had been suffering from flu-like symptoms for five days, had been dropping weight and earlier in the day had been foaming at the mouth.
Jon Phillips told police that Chandler had been ill for 10 days. He said the 7-year-old had been eating oatmeal and drinking Gatorade but may have "lost a little weight," according to the court documents.

But Dr. Marilyn Marr, of the Pediatric Emergency Department at Swedish Hospital, said Chandler's malnourishment occurred over an extended period.

Marr concluded that Chandler's death appeared to be the result of extreme malnourishment, characterized by physical wasting including loss of weight and muscle mass.
The Denver coroner also ruled that the boy died of starvation and dehydration.

Berry told detectives that Chandler had been very ill and may have vomited into the litter box in the closet, where she said Chandler liked "to hide." Without explanation, Berry also said she feared the cause of Chandler's death was related to the litter box in the closet.
Berry's attorney Jason Young couldn't be reached.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007


Another great example of how we are losing our Human being values reinforcing dumb laws.
Elderly Woman Arrested in Clash Over Dry Lawn Calls Experience 'Nightmare'

Monday, July 09, 2007.

Betty Perry
A 70-year-old Utah woman, who was arrested last week for refusing to accept a ticket for a dry lawn she couldn't afford to water
, told FOX News Monday that the arrest was her "worst nightmare."

Betty Perry, of Orem, Utah, was arrested Friday after police tried to ticket her for her brown, sickly lawn.
"It was horrible," Perry told FOX News, describing her arrest. "It was like your worst nightmare."
The police officer who arrested her has been suspended by his red-faced bosses.

"Life is a learning experience, and each officer learns over the course of a career that tactics and responses are not absolute in each situation," said Lt. Doug Edwards, a spokesman for Orem police.

When the officer knocked on Perry's door, she refused to identify herself or accept a citation and said she wanted to call her son.
As the officer tried to take her hand, Perry tripped on the front step, cut the bridge of her nose and rolled onto her stomach, putting her hands under her to foil the officer, Edwards said.
Perry was eventually handcuffed and taken to jail, where she spent more than an hour before officials decided custody was inappropriate.

The woman hasn't watered her lawn in a year, a violation of a city ordinance, Edwards said.

"I've never been attacked before like that," Perry told KSL-TV. "I can't afford to turn my water on for $50 a month. ... I just hope he can apologize and this can all be forgotten."
The officer's name was not released. Orem is in Utah County, 30 miles south of Salt Lake City.

"There were other options available to handle this situation besides making an arrest and holding the woman in jail," Edwards said.

"Certainly had the woman been a shoplifter at the mall who refused to identify herself, no one would question or be surprised that she was arrested and handcuffed, regardless of her age," he said.

What the Police officer were thinking on arresting this poor lady rather than contact the city to gave her another options or exceptions to the rule. Where's the compassion on this Country? Where are our values as human beings?
Shame on the city to make this happen and do not provide some options to their citizens.











Another perfect example of how Hypocrisy and Xenophobia running against Latinos or Undocumented Immigrants in our own Country. Mr. Lou Barletta Blame them to gain popularity rather than focus on the real American values.
Answer to this Mr. Lou Barletta. This happen just in front of your noses. How can you bring back her mental and Psychology state of peace mind of this Innocent girl? That Outrageous Mr. Lou Barletta bringing Lou Dobbs to your State to make a national statement that Undocumented Inmigrant bring crime to your city. Shame on both of you to blaming undocumented Immigrant when the criminals, predators are in our own house, in our own family.

Just read this statemnet from Lou Barletta. Illegals got away from murder. Answer to this Mr. Barletta.... When can you show us the facts that how many Undocumented immigrants comitted a crime and how many Citizens as well?
Quote from Mr.Barletta: "I've been called the Grand Wizard of the KKK. I took an oath of office to protect and defend the people of my community. And they can call me all the names they want. But this is worth fighting for against Undocumented Immigrants. but what about your contituentents, the future citizens of your State?

Ex-city man sentenced for raping 11-year-old
JAMES CONMY 07/10/2007

WILKES-BARRE — A former Wilkes-Barre man was sentenced Monday to 14 to 28 years in prison for raping and having inappropriate sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl several times within a year.

Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. told Christopher John Peters his actions were “absolutely reprehensible” before handing down the stiff sentence. Olszewski could have ordered the 39-year-old to six to 12 years in prison, but went above recommended guidelines.
Other than Peters taking responsibility for his actions with a February guilty plea, Olszewski said he saw no other signs of remorse. That lack of remorse and the severity of Peters’ crimes justify the added prison time, Olszewski said.

Assistant District Attorney Jenny Roberts pushed for a stiffer sentence because of the numerous occasions on which Peters’ crimes took place.
Public defender John Donovan attempted to limit his client’s sentence at six to 12 years by telling Olszewski that Peters is a father of nine who does not have an extensive criminal history.
“I’m sorry. I know I have hurt a lot of people,” Peters told Olszewski before the sentence was handed down.

Police charged Peters, whose last address was Park Avenue, with fondling and having inappropriate contact with the girl beginning in the early part of 2006. The contact escalated into intercourse by the end of the year. Peters had sex with the girl up to five times, but claims he did not rape her.
What a shame on you Mr. Lou Barletta and this man that wants to be sentence just to a six years. Shame on the District Attorney if he will allow this to happen. He must be on jail for 20 years or longer because having a sex with a 11 year old kid is a crime.

Monday, July 09, 2007



















Shocking news. Where are the American Values? Where are the Congressman stand on this issue? The Anchors Media? Who Stand for those Unprotected Children’s? Are you Lou Dobbs? Are you Tom Tancredo (You mention you were single out for being the Anti Undocumented fighter? Are you Pat Buchannan? Are you Xenophobics? I believe we as a great Nation we have most important issues and values to recover than being just Hypocrites and Xenophobics against others.

HIV-Positive Physician Admits Child Sex Abuse
Atlanta ER Doctor Pleads Guilty to Child Exploitation in Sex Case
Adam Lebowitz was a resident at the Emory School of Medicine and also worked in the emergency room at Grady Memorial Hospital

An emergency room doctor who was suspended after being arrested for trying to have sex with a 15-year-old boy he met over the Internet pleaded guilty Thursday to that charge and to producing child pornography.
Adam Wayne Lebowitz, 48, of DeKalb County, was arrested Nov. 2 at the boy's home in Coweta County in western Georgia when he arrived with lubricants, condoms and sleeping bags, police said.

According to court documents, Lebowitz twice filmed sexual encounters he had with underage boys and sent the images over the Internet. In late 2006, Lebowitz met an underage boy from Coweta County online and arranged to meet him for a sexual encounter. Lebowitz was arrested outside the boy's house. In the plea agreement, Lebowitz also waived his right to confidentiality about his being HIV positive, something he didn't tell the children he had sex with. The Composite State Board of Medical Examiners suspended Lebowitz the day after his arrest, based on the charge that the holder has "committed a crime involving moral turpitude, without regard to conviction," according to the suspension order.

He was a resident at the Emory School of Medicine and also worked in the emergency room at Grady Memorial Hospital.

We are living in a time where the regard for others has dimenished to almost nothing. Sad. You can trust the Dr, lawyers, politicians, Anchors News Media. I fear for my children since as I get older people seem to get more evil and uncaring. I know no one wants to hear this but when you start taking God out of the equation turmoil is left.
There are no words. What is going on in this country? This is a doctor who doesn't even have the descency to tell his victims that he is probably infecting them with a deadly disease! I try not to judge the actions of others, but in this case, I am appalled. This is just SO WRONG! These are not the actions of a human being, these are the actions of an ?????.
HIV-Positive Physician Admits Child Sex Abuse



















What a great Job have done the Porn patrol arresting 13 Adults on Child Pornography.

By KATHRYN MARCHOCKI
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Thursday, Jun. 28, 2007


CONCORD – A statewide crackdown on child pornography trafficking over the Internet so far resulted in 13 adult arrests, 40 search warrants and nine juvenile petitions over the last eight months with more charges expected, state Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte said yesterday.

Now the specially trained, undercover online investigators who formed the Child Exploitation Task Force will return to their respective local agencies where they will continue to pursue offenders and train colleagues in how to mount these highly technical probes.
"These images involve real children who are being abused," Ayotte said.

One child pornography suspect allegedly was downloading illegal images when police arrived at his door, Portsmouth Police Lt. Timothy A. Brownell said. Another in Raymond had a large amount of Viagra in his home, Brownell said. And police found such a large computer server in a Hudson home that they needed an ambulance to haul it away.
Ayotte describes the photographic and videotaped images being traded and downloaded over the Internet across the state as "child sexual abuse images," saying the term child pornography does not accurately capture the horror of the crime.
The images include a 3-year-old child being raped on a bed, she said. Another shows a 12-year-old tied to a tree and raped. Others are of 9- and 10-year-old girls performing oral sex on adults.

"These are probably some of the most horrendous images that anyone could see," said Portsmouth Police Chief Michael J. Magnant.

"Every time a criminal downloads one of these images, that child is being exploited again and again and again," Magnant added. The Portsmouth department hosts the New England Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, which worked with the Attorney General to launch the Child Exploitation Task Force task force last October. About 20 local, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies dedicated officers to the task force, who were trained by computer forensics experts from the Portsmouth-based team.

Their work resulted in 13 adults arrested or indicted between Nov. 16 and May 25, Ayotte said. Ten men and one woman are charged with possessing child pornography, a class B felony. None of the people arrested work with children.

When making one of the arrests, police discovered a 13th individual wanted in another state and charged him as a fugitive, state officials said. His name was not available.

Other cases are pending before grand juries, Ayotte said. She said confidentiality laws protecting juveniles barred her from discussing the nine juvenile petitions filed.
Investigators also identified nine children between 12 and 16 in the homes of those arrested for possible child abuse, Brownell said. Authorities are following up to determine if they were sexually abused.
None of the children depicted in the images discovered by the task force are from New Hampshire, Ayotte said.

An estimated 7 million child sexual abuse images exist on the Internet, Magnant said. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington, D.C. has been able to identify about 1,000 of the children portrayed in the images through forensic analyses, Magnant said he learned at a two-day conference on Internet Crimes Against Children held in Charleston, S.C. last week.

Of the 1,000 children identified so far, two were traced to New Hampshire and authorities notified, he said.

While those arrested so far have been charged with possessing child pornography, authorities said they also are investigating the manufacture of child pornography in New Hampshire.
"That's part of the investigation. It's ongoing," Brownell said. "It's pretty easy to do that now with some of the technology out there."
Ayotte also issued commendations to the task force investigators for their work.

Child porn arrests
David Curtis: 42, of Derry

Jessica Doty: 20, of Manchester

John Fironini: of North Hampton

Matthew Greenwood: 27, of Dover

Jeremy Leavis: 32, of Epping

Charles Lyons: 33, of Hudson

David Martinuk: 41, of Rye

Nicholas Plourde: of Meredith

Patrick Roddy: 51, of Portsmouth

Ryan St. Jean: 18, of Hampstead

James Skerry: 62, of Raymond

None of those were Hispanics, Mexicans, Latinos, etc. Wonder why the media won't (CNN. CBS,ABC, FOX, ETC) cover this information about those child predators that just want to stealing their innocence and the future of the children's and the xenophobics (Anchors Media), missinforming the public and put the blame on Undocumented, (Illegals) Immigrants for raping, robbing, etc.
Lets talk about real facts. Let's expose the real facts and not myth's or spreading the Xenophobia and racism against Latinos.

Friday, July 06, 2007
















Let's all talk about truth and Justice! End the Supremacist power of Hate, Racism and Xenophobia. And all Media who are exploiting ignorance and promoting Hate, Xenophobia and Racism like Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchannan, Glen Beck, Tom Tamcredo, Minute Man Groups, etc. or the History may repeat itself and the Latinos will suffer from massive raids like happen on the 1930's.

Estimates of the total number of Mexicans repatriated range from 600,000 to 1.6 million most of them U.S Citizens and Legal Residents.
The History of the U.S. Citizen in the 1930's. (Ignacio Piña).

His father and oldest sister were farming sugar beets in the fields of Hamilton, Mont., and his mother was cooking tortillas when 6-year-old Ignacio Piña saw plainclothes authorities burst into his home.
"They came in with guns and told us to get out," recalls Piña, 81, a retired railroad worker in Bakersfield, Calif., of the 1931 raid. "They didn't let us take anything," not even a trunk that held birth certificates proving that he and his five siblings were U.S.-born citizens.
The family was thrown into a jail for 10 days before being sent by train to Mexico. Piña says he spent 16 years of "pure hell" there before acquiring papers of his Utah birth and returning to the USA.

The deportation of Piña's family tells an almost-forgotten story of a 1930s anti-immigrant campaign. Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were pressured — through raids and job denials — to leave the USA during the Depression, according to a review of documents and interviews with historians and deportees. Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.

If their tales seem incredible, a newspaper analysis of the history textbooks used most in U.S. middle and high schools may explain why: Little has been written about the exodus, often called "the repatriation."

That may soon change. As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on bills that would either help Undocumented workers become legal residents or boost enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, an effort to address deportations that happened 70 years ago has gained traction: Didn't happen.

• Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., plans to introduce a bill in the U.S. House that calls for a commission to study the "deportation and coerced emigration" of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The panel would also recommend remedies that could include reparations. "An apology should be made," she says.

Co-sponsor Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., says history may repeat itself. He says a new House bill that makes being an Undocumented immigrant a felony could prompt a "massive deportation of U.S. citizens," many of them U.S.-born children leaving with their parents.

"We have safeguards to ensure people aren't deported who shouldn't be," says Jeff Lungren, GOP spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, adding the new House bill retains those safeguards.

California became the first state to enact a bill that apologizes to Latino families for the 1930s civil rights violations. It declined to approve the sort of reparations the U.S. Congress provided in 1988 for Japanese-Americans interned during World War II.

Democratic state Sen. Joe Dunn, a self-described "Irish white guy from Minnesota" who sponsored the state bill, is now pushing a measure to require students be taught about the 1930s emigration. He says as many as 2 million people of Mexican ancestry were coerced into leaving, 60% of them U.S. citizens.

A group of deportees and their relatives, known as los repatriados, will host a conference in Detroit on the topic. Organizer Helen Herrada, whose father was deported, has conducted 100 oral histories and produced a documentary. She says many sent to Mexico felt "humiliated" and didn't want to talk about it. "They just don't want it to happen again."

No precise figures exist on how many of those deported in the 1930s were Undocumented immigrants. Since many of those harassed left on their own, and their journeys were not officially recorded, there are also no exact figures on the total number who departed.
At least 345,839 people went to Mexico from 1930 to 1935, with 1931 as the peak year, says a 1936 dispatch from the U.S. Consulate General in Mexico City.
"It was a racial removal program," says Mae Ngai, an immigration history expert at the University of Chicago, adding people of Mexican ancestry were targeted.

However, Americans in the 1930s were "really hurting," says Otis Graham, history professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara. One in four workers were unemployed and many families hungry. Deporting Undocumented residents was not an "outrageous idea," Graham says. "Don't lose the context."

A pressure campaign

In the early 1900s, Mexicans poured into the USA, welcomed by U.S. factory and farm owners who needed their labor. Until entry rules tightened in 1924, they simply paid a nickel to cross the border and get visas for legal residency.
"The vast majority were here legally, because it was so easy to enter legally," says Kevin Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Davis.

They spread out across the nation. They sharecropped in California, Texas and Louisiana, harvested sugar beets in Montana and Minnesota, laid railroad tracks in Kansas, mined coal in Utah and Oklahoma, packed meat in Chicago and assembled cars in Detroit.
By 1930, the U.S. Census counted 1.42 million people of Mexican ancestry, and 805,535 of them were U.S. born, up from 700,541 in 1920.

Change came in 1929, as the stock market and U.S. economy crashed. That year, U.S. officials tightened visa rules, reducing legal immigration from Mexico to a trickle. They also discussed what to do with those already in the USA.

"The government undertook a program that coerced people to leave," says Layla Razavi, policy analyst for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). "It was really a hostile environment." She says federal officials in the Hoover administration, like local-level officials, made no distinction between people of Mexican ancestry who were in the USA legally and those who weren't.
"The document trail is shocking," says Dunn, whose staff spent two years researching the topic after he read the 1995 book Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s, by Francisco Balderrama and Raymond Rodriguez.

They cite officials saying the deportations lawfully focused on Undocumented immigrants while the exodus of legal residents was voluntary. Yet they suggest people of Mexican ancestry faced varying forms of harassment and intimidation:

Raids. Officials staged well-publicized raids in public places. On Feb. 26, 1931, immigration officials suddenly closed off La Placita, a square in Los Angeles, and questioned the roughly 400 people there about their legal status.
The raids "created a climate of fear and anxiety" and prompted many Mexicans to leave voluntarily, says Balderrama, professor of Chicano studies and history at California State University, Los Angeles.

In a June 1931 memo to superiors, Walter Carr, Los Angeles district director of immigration, said "thousands upon thousands of Mexicans" have been "literally scared out of Southern California."
Some of them came from hospitals and needed medical care en route to Mexico, immigrant inspector Harry Yeager wrote in a November 1932 letter.

The Wickersham Commission, an 11-member panel created by President Hoover, said in a May 1931 report that immigration inspectors made "checkups" of boarding houses, restaurants and pool rooms without "warrants of any kind." Labor Secretary William Doak responded that the "checkups" occurred very rarely.

• Jobs withheld. Prodded by labor unions, states and private companies barred non-citizens from some jobs, Balderrama says.

"We need their jobs for needy citizens," C.P. Visel of the Los Angeles Citizens Committee for Coordination of Unemployment Relief wrote in a 1931 telegram. In a March 1931 letter to Doak, Visel applauded U.S. officials for the "exodus of aliens deportable and otherwise who have been scared out of the community."
Emilia Castenada, 79, recalls coming home from school in 1935 in Los Angeles and hearing her father say he was being deported because "there was no work for Mexicans." She says her father, a stonemason, was a legal resident who owned property. A U.S. citizen who spoke little Spanish, she left the USA with her brother and father, who was never allowed back.
"The jobs were given to the white Americans, not the Mexicans," says Carlos DeAnda Guerra, 77, a retired furniture upholsterer in Carpinteria, Calif. He says his parents entered the USA legally in 1917 but were denied jobs. He, his mother and five U.S.-born siblings were deported in 1931, while his father, who then went into hiding, stayed to pick oranges.

"The slogan has gone out over the city (Los Angeles) and is being adhered to — 'Employ no Mexican while a white man is unemployed,' " wrote George Clements, manager of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce's agriculture department, in a memo to his boss Arthur Arnoll. He said the Mexicans' legal status was not a factor: "It is a question of pigment, not a question of citizenship or right."
Public aid threatened. County welfare offices threatened to withhold the public aid of many Mexican-Americans, Ngai says. Memos show they also offered to pay for trips to Mexico but sometimes failed to provide adequate food. An immigration inspector reported in a November 1932 memo that no provisions were made for 78 children on a train. Their only sustenance: a few ounces of milk daily.
Most of those leaving were told they could return to the USA whenever they wanted, wrote Clements in an August 1931 letter. "This is a grave mistake, because it is not the truth." He reported each was given a card that made their return impossible, because it showed they were "county charities." Even those born in the USA, he wrote, wouldn't be able to return unless they had a birth certificate or similar proof.

Forced departures. Some of the deportees who were moved by train or car had guards to ensure they left the USA and others were sent south on a "closed-body school bus" or "Mexican gun boat," memos show.

"Those who tried to say 'no' ended up in the physical deportation category," Dunn says, adding they were taken in squad cars to train stations.
Mexican-Americans recall other pressure tactics. Arthur Herrada, 81, a retired Ford engineer in Huron, Ohio, says his father, who was a legal U.S. resident, was threatened with deportation if he didn't join the U.S. Army. His father enlisted.

'We weren't welcome'

"It was an injustice that shouldn't have happened," says Jose Lopez, 79, a retired Ford worker in Detroit. He says his father came to the USA legally but couldn't find his papers in 1931 and was deported. To keep the family together, his mother took her six U.S.-born children to Mexico, where they often survived on one meal a day. Lopez welcomes a U.S. apology.
So does Guerra, the retired upholsterer, whose voice still cracks with emotion when he talks about how deportation tore his family apart. "I'm very resentful. I don't trust the government at all," says Guerra, who later served in the U.S. military.

Piña says his entire family got typhoid fever in Mexico and his father, who had worked in Utah coal mines, died of black lung disease in 1935. "My mother was left destitute, with six of us, in a country we knew nothing about," he says. They lived in the slums of Mexico City, where his formal education ended in sixth grade. "We were misfits there. We weren't welcome."

"The Depression was very bad here. You can imagine how hard it was in Mexico," says Piña, who proudly notes the advanced college degrees of each of his four U.S.-raised sons. "You can't put 16 years of pure hell out of your mind."

Thursday, July 05, 2007



















Surge a big wave in Applications for Citizenship after the senate didn't passed the Immigration bill. Legals Immigrants feeling the fear of Xenophobics, racist movement for locking in economic gains that they have made as legal residents

The number of legal immigrants seeking to become United States citizens is surging, officials say, prompted by imminent increases in fees to process naturalization applications, citizenship drives across the country and new feelings of insecurity among immigrants.

The citizenship campaigns have tapped into the uneasiness that legal immigrants, especially Hispanics, say is a result of months of debate over an immigration bill that failed last week in the Senate. Although Undocumented immigrants were the center of attention in the debate, it prompted many legal immigrants who have put down roots here to seek the security of citizenship, as well as its voting power, immigrants’ advocates said.

The numbers of new naturalized citizens have steadily grown, to 702,589 last year from 463,204 in 2003. A big jump occurred this year, with the number of applications increasing every month, to 115,175 in May compared with 65,782 last December.

More than 4,000 new Americans were sworn in yesterday in tradition-steeped — and some not so traditional — Fourth of July ceremonies. About 1,000 people from 75 countries took their oaths together under the turrets of Cinderella’s Castle at Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., as Gloria Estefan sang “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
In Iraq, 325 foreign-born soldiers who are fighting in the United States military took the oath of allegiance in two ceremonies.

For many legal immigrants, worry about their futures in the United States turned into action after an announcement on Jan. 31 by Citizenship and Immigration Services that it would increase application fees.

Under the new fees, which take effect on July 30, it will cost $675 to become a naturalized citizen, up 69 percent from $400.
Immigrants have also been mobilized to press naturalization applications by a television and radio campaign that Univision, the national Spanish-language network, began in January in California.
The campaign, promoted by personalities like Eduardo Sotelo, a radio host in Los Angeles known as El Piolín, or Tweety Bird, has directed immigrants to 350 workshop centers run by churches and other community organizations in 22 cities. At the centers, immigrants receive English lessons and advice on meeting requirements and filling out forms.
One radio listener was Ángel Iván Álvarez, 24, a legal immigrant from Mexico who said he had never thought of becoming a citizen until last week when the Senate bill failed.
The measure, a bipartisan compromise supported by President Bush, would have created a path to legal status for Undocuemnted immigrants, among other actions.

After it failed, Mr. Álvarez, a real estate agent from Whittier, Calif., took down information from El Piolín’s show and registered in a citizenship workshop.
I realized that I want to be able to vote and speak up for my people, because they are not getting enough support,” Mr. Álvarez said yesterday in a telephone interview. “I want everybody to be able to come out of the shadows.”

Federico Gutiérrez, 53, a longtime legal resident of Chicago who was born in Mexico, said large protests in March 2006 in support of an immigration overhaul made him decide that it was time to engage in American politics.

When the debate turned angry, Mr. Gutiérrez said, he wanted to be able to influence lawmakers who he believed favored immigrants.

He prepared his application and brushed up on his English and American history in classes offered by the New Americans Initiative, a citizenship campaign financed by Illinois. He became a citizen in May.

Now if I don’t like the way things are going, I can let the government know my opinion,” Mr. Gutiérrez said in a telephone interview.

Some legal immigrants, particularly Hispanics, have said they were unfairly tarred in the debate over the Senate bill, which failed in part because of vehement opposition from conservatives who said it offered blanket amnesty to Undocumented immigrants.

“A lot of people who are here legally are made to feel like lepers,” said Rachel Duverge, 24, a Florida resident born in the Dominican Republic who was among the new citizens sworn in yesterday at Walt Disney World.

Ms. Duverge said she became a citizen in part because she was eager to vote in the presidential election next year. President Bush, she said, “has not handled immigration well.”
To become citizens, immigrants have to be legal permanent residents who have lived continuously in the United States for five years. They cannot have a criminal record and must pass tests to show proficiency in English and a basic knowledge of American history and government.
Advocates for immigrants say the increase in fees has been a decisive incentive for working-class immigrants to take action, especially when more than one family member is eligible to be a citizen.
“Before they said, ‘I can do it anytime,’ ” said Catherine Salgado, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights in Chicago. “Now it’s not anytime anymore.”

Ms. Salgado said the $675 fee was a week’s wages for many immigrants who had applied for naturalization through workshops organized by the coalition.

The immigration agency is also remaking its civics and English tests, and many immigrants say they fear that the tests will be more challenging.

The Univision campaign had greater effects than its organizers expected, especially in California, said Maryam Banikaram, chief marketing officer for the company. Ms. Banikaram said the effort was part of its regular nonpartisan public service efforts of the company.
“If you become a U.S. citizen, you have better opportunities,” she said. “We’re just giving you the tools to make that a reality.”

The campaign took off after the immigration debate became major news for Univision and Mr. Sotelo, or El Piolín, used his comic radio show as a soapbox to support legal status for Undocumented immigrants.
Other immigrants are concerned about locking in economic gains that they have made as legal residents.

A prime motivator is security for the family and for employment
said Javiér Angulo, director of civic education for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, which organized workshops in connection with the Univision campaign. “People don’t feel that being permanent residents is enough to secure their future in this country. They would just feel more secure as citizens.”

In Chicago, Mr. Gutiérrez said he started life in a corn-growing village in central Mexico and had worked in factories most of the time since entering the United States in 1979. He has two adult children who are United States citizens.

“I will always have Mexican blood,” Mr. Gutiérrez said, enjoying a day of rest on his first Fourth of July as an American citizen. “But know my heart, my soul, my family is here.”

Wednesday, July 04, 2007





What most Americans are on Denial Stage. The Invasion of United States to Mexico.
Before this War was engage by both Countries U.S. was already raising their flag on California, Texas, Arizona, Oregon and New Mexico. Do you believe this war was a fair practice of War or just was an another Ironic Conspiracy and unjustified Invasion by U.S.?
Compare Polk's actions with that of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein justified his invasion of Kuwait based upon old territorial claims.

The Mexican–American War, also known in the United States as the Mexican War, and in Mexico as La Invasión Estadounidense (the United States Invasion), La Intervención Norteamericana (the North American Intervention), La Guerra de Defensa (the war of defence), or La Guerra del 47 (the War of '47) was a military conflict fought between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848, in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas. Mexico had not recognized the secession of Texas in 1836 and announced its intention to take back what it considered a rebel province.

In the United States, the war was a partisan issue, supported by most Democrats and opposed by most Whigs, with popular belief in the Manifest Destiny of the United States ultimately translating into public support for the war. In Mexico, the war was considered a matter of national pride.

The most important consequence of the war was the Mexican Cession, in which the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México,were ceded to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In Mexico, the enormous loss (52%) of territory encouraged the central government to enact policies to colonize its northern territories as a hedge against further losses.
After Mexico gained independence from the Spanish Empire at the end of the Mexican War of Independence in 1821, the Mexican Empire inherited ownership of the provinces of Alta California, Nuevo Mexico, and Texas, from Spain. (These territories are now States within the United States of America.) Weakened and virtually bankrupt from the Mexican War of Independence, the new Mexican government found it difficult to govern its northern territories, which in any case were thousands of miles from Mexico City, the capital.
Although the United States made overtures to the Mexican government to buy Texas, Mexico, ruled by Agustín I of Mexico (Iturbide), opposed it. Mexico intended to colonize its northern provinces.
Mexico's Constitution of 1835 prohibited slavery. Many Texans were slave owners who had emigrated from Tennessee and other slave states in the United States. These Texans objected to the abolition of slavery. They were further incensed in 1836 when General Antonio López de Santa Anna abolished the 1835 constitution and established a new constitution that attempted to centralize power. The new centralist constitution enshrined the Siete Leyes, which included secular reforms but granted additional powers to the president, such as the power to close congress and suppress the judiciary. Several Mexican states rebelled against the new central government under Santa Anna, including Texas (then a department of the state of Coahuila y Tejas), San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco and Zacatecas.
A violent insurgency, known as the Texas Revolution, started in 1836. General Santa Anna responded by engaging in two battles against rebel forces, the Álamo and Goliad, which encouraged a wider revolt in Texas.

Republic of Texas

The Republic of Texas.The present-day outlines of the U.S. states are superimposed on the boundaries of 1836–1845.In the 1836 Texas Revolution, Texas won its independence after defeating Santa Anna and the Mexican army. General Santa Anna was taken captive by the Texan's militia and released only after signing the Treaties of Velasco in which he promised to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Texas and the Rio Grande as the Texian-Mexican boundary. When he returned to Mexico City the government refused to recognize the loss or independence of the Republic of Texas because, it said, Santa Anna was not a representative of Mexico and that he signed away Texas under duress. Mexico declared its intention to recapture what it considered a breakaway state.
In the decade after 1836, Texas consolidated its position as an independent republic by establishing diplomatic ties with Britain, France, and the United States. Most Texans were in favor of annexation by the United States, but U.S. President Andrew Jackson rejected it.

Under U.S. President James K. Polk, Texas was admitted to the union in 1845, when it became the 28th state. The Mexican government had long warned that annexation meant war with the United States. Britain and France, which recognized the independence of Texas, repeatedly tried to dissuade Mexico from declaring war against a much more powerful neighbor. British efforts to mediate were fruitless in part because additional political disputes (particularly the Oregon boundary dispute) arose between Mexico, Britain and the United States.
In 1845 U.S. President James K. Polk sent diplomat John Slidell to Mexico City in an attempt to purchase Mexico's California and New Mexico territories. U.S. expansionists wanted California as a way to thwart British ambitions in the area and to have a Pacific Ocean port. Polk authorized Slidell to forgive the $4.5 million owed to U.S. citizens for damages caused by the Mexican War of Independence and pay another $25 to $30 million in exchange for the two territories.
However, Mexico was not inclined nor in a position to negotiate. In 1846 alone, the presidency changed hands four times, the war ministry six times, and the finance ministry sixteen times.[1] Mexican public opinion and Mexican political factions and leaders felt Mexico's honor would be diminished by selling any territory.[2] Mexicans opposing open conflict with the United States, including President José Joaquín de Herrera, were viewed as traitors. When de Herrera considered receiving Slidell in order to peacefully negotiate the problem of Texas annexation, he was accused of treason and deposed.
Military opponents of President José Joaquín de Herrera supported by populous newspapers, considered Slidell's presence in Mexico City an insult. After a more nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga came to power, the new government publicly reaffirmed Mexico's claim to Texas, and Slidell left convinced that Mexico should be "chastized." [2]

Opening hostilities
Mexico, which had refused to recognized Texas's independence, claimed the Nueces River — about 150 miles (240 km) north of the Rio Grande — as the border between Texas and Mexico. The United States, however, upheld Texas' claim to the land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. The boundary claimed by Texas was established by the 1836 Treaty of Velasco that ended the Texas Revolution. Mexico argued that General Santa Anna signed the treaty under duress when he was held captive by the Texans. Moreover, the Mexicans argued, Santa Anna had no authority to negotiate or sign a treaty, and the treaties were never ratified by the Mexican government. In 1846, after Texas was admitted into the Union, Polk sent militia under General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande to protect Texas.
Taylor ignored Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces and began constructing a make-shift fort (later known as Fort Brown) on the banks of the Rio Grande opposite the Mexican town of Matamoros. Mexican forces under General Mariano Arista prepared for war.
On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that was sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors escaped and returned to Fort Brown.

On May 3, Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Brown, which replied with its own guns. The bombardment continued for five days and expanded as Mexican forces gradually surrounded the fort. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during the bombardment, including Jacob Brown, after whom the fort was later named.

On May 8, Zachary Taylor arrived with 2,400 troops to relieve the fort. However, Arista rushed north and intercepted him with a force of 3,400 at Palo Alto. The Americans used a new artillery method named flying artillery — a mobile light artillery that was mounted on horse carriages, with all cannoneers mounted as well. U.S. artillery had a devastating effect on the Mexican Army. The Mexicans responded with cavalry skirmishes and its own artillery. The U.S. flying artillery somewhat demoralized the Mexican side, and they felt the need to find a terrain more to their advantage. They retreated to the far side of a dry riverbed (resaca) during the night, which provided a natural fortification, but they also scattered their troops so that communication was difficult. During the Battle of Resaca de la Palma the next day, the two sides engaged in vicious hand-to-hand fighting. The U.S. cavalry managed to capture the Mexican artillery, leading the Mexican side to retreat—a retreat that turned into a rout. Because of the terrain and the dispersion of his troops, Arista found it impossible to rally his forces. Mexican casualties were heavy, and the Mexicans were forced to abandon their artillery and baggage. Fort Brown inflicted further casualties as the withdrawing troops passed by them and swam across the Rio Grande where many drowned.

Declaration of war
By then, Polk had received word of the Thornton Affair. This, added to the Mexican government's rejection of Slidell, Polk believed, constituted a casus belli. His message to Congress on May 11, 1846 stated that Mexico had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil." A joint session of Congress approved the declaration of war, with southern Democrats in strong support because they saw the annexation of Mexico as an opportunity to increase the number of slave states. Sixty-seven Whigs voted against the war on a key slavery amendment, but on the final passage only 14 Whigs voted no, including Reps. Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams. The United States declared war on Mexico on May 13, 1846. Mexico officially declared war on July 7 (sometimes the manifest from President Paredes on May 23 is considered a declaration of war, but only the Mexican congress had the power to declare war).

Opposition to the war
In the United States, most Whigs in the North and South opposed the war; most Democrats supported it. Joshua Giddings led a group of dissenters in Washington D.C. He called the war with Mexico "an aggressive, unholy, and unjust war," and voted against suppling soldiers and weapons for the war. He said:

"In the murder of Mexicans upon their own soil, or in robbing them of their country, I can take no part either now or here-after. The guilt of these crimes must rest on others. I will not participate in them."
Fellow Whig, Congressman Abraham Lincoln, contested the causes for the war and demanded to know the exact spot on which Thornton had been attacked and U.S. blood shed. "Show me the spot," he demanded. Whig leader Robert Toombs of Georgia declared:

"This war is a nondescript.... We charge the President with usurping the war-making power... with seizing a country... which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans.... Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew."[3]

Northern abolitionists attacked the war as an attempt by slave-owners -- frequently referred to as "the Slave Power" -- to expand the grip of slavery and thus assure their continued influence in the federal government. Acting on his convictions, Henry David Thoreau was jailed for his refusal to pay taxes to support the war, and penned his famous essay, Civil Disobedience.
Former President John Quincy Adams also expressed his belief that the war was fundamentally an effort to expand slavery. In response to such concerns, Democratic Congressman David Wilmot introduced the Wilmot Proviso, which aimed to prohibit slavery in any new territory acquired from Mexico. Wilmot's proposal did not pass Congress, but it spurred further hostility between the factions.
Conduct of the war
After the declaration of war, U.S. forces invaded Mexican territory on two main fronts. The U.S. war department sent a cavalry force under Stephen W. Kearny to invade western Mexico from Fort Leavenworth, reinforced by a Pacific fleet under John D. Sloat. This was done primarily because of concerns that Britain might also attempt to occupy the area. Two more forces, one under John E. Wool and the other under Taylor, were ordered to occupy Mexico as far south as the city of Monterrey.
Letter from a Naval surgeon on board the frigate "Potomac" en route to Mexico

A young Navy assistant surgeon, Oscar F. Baxter, a native of North Carolina, when on his way to Vera Cruz during the Mexican War, wrote a letter to his fiancée. The letter was dated October 1, 1846 and was posted from Pensacola, Florida when his ship the frigate "Potomac" made a stop at the Navy yard there. In it he reported that there had been a lot of scurvy among the men on the ship, but the worst seemed to be over. But another disease was causing him great stress: yellow fever, which had afflicted some on the ship and about forty more workers at the Pensacola Navy yard (including the surgeon there, for whom Dr. Baxter had to fill in).

He goes on to say that he has heard a "rumor" that the overtures of peace offered by our government have come. He was happy to report that he anticipated, in several months' time, to return to the United States to take an examination, which if passed, would promote him from assistant surgeon to surgeon; such promotion would raise his annual salary from $1,028 to $1,273.
He also reports:

The blockading squadron off Vera Cruz has recently captured several rich prizes--the value of the two last is estimated at $150,000. They will be brought in and be judged by a Court of Admiralty whether they are legal prizes or not.
After all of that, he includes the following in his letter:

A man by the name of Samuel Jackson, seaman on board of the St. Mary's (a sister ship to the "Potomac" in the squadron en route to Mexico) has been sentenced to death by a Court Martial recently held upon the charges preferred against him for mutiny. The Commodore has approved the sentence and the day has been appointed for carrying it into effect. An example of the kind becomes sometimes an act of humanity. If he be let off, a dozen may ultimately may have to suffer his sentence carried into effect. It is possible the Commodore may reprieve him. If he does it will be a death blow to the discipline of the Squadron.
Actually, Jackson had already been executed on September 21, 1846, according to the account published in The Daybook included below. Evidently, Dr. Baxter had heard of the incident on his way to Pensacola, but had not yet learned of the execution when he wrote his letter on October 1st.

(The actual letter referred to above is in the possession of Dr. Baxter's great-grandson, who lives in Baltimore County, Maryland. Later, after North Carolina seceded from the Union at the time of the Civil War, Dr. Baxter became a surgeon in the Confederate army. Excerpts from several letters to his twelve-year-old daughter in 1864 from the field of battle at Chaffin's Bluff in Virginia (at which time he was a widower) describe the intense fighting going on around his field hospital and the large number of badly-wounded men, both Confederate and Union, that he had to treat.)

Several weeks into the (Mexican) war, discipline continued to be a problem...throughout the squadron. Despite weekly floggings, officers and sailors continue to violate basic rules of discipline...Tired of the chaos, (the squadron commander) decided to make an example of one sailor. The unlucky fellow was Seaman Samuel Jackson of St. Mary’s. Jackson had assaulted his division officer. Though everyone in the squadron, including the lieutenant who was attacked, thought it to be excessive, an execution went forward. Rev. Taylor made many trips over to St. Mary’s to see the condemned man and to convert him to Christianity before his death...on the morning of September 21, Jackson was hung from the yardarm in front of the entire squadron. While many disagreed with (the squadron commander's) decision, there were far fewer discipline problems for the rest of the war.

California
When the US declared war against Mexico, on May 13, 1846, it took almost two months (mid-July 1846) for definite word of war to get to California. U.S. consul Thomas O. Larkin, stationed in Monterey, on hearing rumors of war tried to keep peace between the U.S. and the small Mexican military garrison commanded by José Castro. U.S. Army captain John C. Frémont with about 60 well-armed men had entered California in December 1845 and was making a slow march to Oregon when they received word that war between Mexico and the U.S. was imminent. [4]
On June 15, 1846, some 30 settlers, mostly U.S. citizens, staged a revolt and seized the small Mexican garrison in Sonoma. They raised the "Bear Flag" of the California Republic over Sonoma. It lasted one week until the U.S. Army, led by Fremont, took over on June 23. The California state flag today is based on this original Bear Flag, and still contains the words "California Republic."
Commodore John Drake Sloat, on hearing of imminent war and the revolt in Sonoma, ordered his naval forces to occupy Yerba Buena (present San Francisco) on July 7 and raise the American flag. When Mexico did not ceclare the war yet. they were Raising the American Flag. On July 15, Sloat transferred his command to Commodore Robert F. Stockton, a much more aggressive leader, who put Frémont's forces under his orders. On July 19, Frémont's "California Battalion" swelled to about 160 additional men from newly arrived settlers near Sacramento, and he entered Monterey in a joint operation with some of Stockton's sailors and marines. The word had been received — the war was official. The U.S. forces easily took over the north of California; within days they controlled San Francisco, Sonoma, and Sutter's Fort in Sacramento.

In Northern California, Mexican General José Castro and Governor Pío Pico fled to Mexico . When Stockton's forces, sailing south to San Diego, stopped in San Pedro, he dispatched 50 US Marines, and entered Los Angeles unresisted on August 13, 1846, known as the Siege of Los Angeles, the nearly bloodless conquest of California seemed complete. Stockton, however, left too small a force in Los Angeles, and the Californios, acting on their own and without help from Mexico, led by José Mariá Flores , forced the American garrison to retreat in late September. More than 300 reinforcements sent by Stockton, led by U.S. Navy Captain William Mervine, were repulsed in the Battle of Dominguez Rancho, October 7 through October 9, 1846, near San Pedro, where 14 U.S. Marines were killed. The rancho vaqueros, banded together to defend their land, fighting as Californio Lancers, became a force to deal with the Americans had not planned on. Meanwhile, General Stephen W. Kearny, with a squadron of 139 dragoons, finally reached California after a grueling march across New Mexico, Arizona and the Sonora desert, on December 6, 1846, and was defeated by the Californio Lancers at the Battle of San Pasqual near San Diego, California, where 22 of Kearny's troops were killed.
Stockton rescued Kearny's retreating forces and later, with their re-supplied, combined force, marched north from San Diego, entering the Los Angeles area on January 8, 1847, linking up with Frémont's men. With U.S. forces totaling 660 soldiers and marines, they fought and defeated the 160 man Californio force in the decisive Battle of Rio San Gabriel, and the next day, January 9, 1847, they fought the Battle of La Mesa. On January 12, 1847, the last significant body of Californios surrendered to U.S. forces. That marked the end of the War in California. On January 13, 1847, the Treaty of Cahuenga was signed.

On January 28, 1847, U.S. Army Lieutenant William Tecumseh Sherman and his army unit arrived in Monterey, California as U.S. forces in the pipeline continued to stream into California. On March 15, 1847, Col. Jonathan D. Stevenson’s Seventh Regiment of New York Volunteers of about 900 men started arriving in California. All of these men were in place when word went out that gold was discovered in California, January 1848.

Northeastern Mexico
The defeats at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma caused political turmoil in Mexico, turmoil which Antonio López de Santa Anna used to revive his political career and return from self-imposed exile in Cuba. He promised the U.S. troops that if allowed to pass through their blockade, he would negotiate a peaceful conclusion to the war and sell the New Mexico and California territories to the United States. Once he arrived in Mexico, however, he reneged and offered his military skills to the Mexican government. After he had been appointed general he reneged again and seized the presidency.

2,300 U.S. troops led by Taylor crossed the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) after some initial difficulties in obtaining river transport. He occupied the city of Matamoros, then Camargo (where while waiting the soldiery suffered the first of many problems with disease) and then proceeded south and besieged the city of Monterrey. This Battle of Monterrey was a hard fought battle during which both sides suffered serious losses. The American light artillery was ineffective against the stone fortifications of the city. The Mexican forces were under General Pedro de Ampudia. A U.S. infantry division and the Texas Rangers captured four hills to the west of the town and with them heavy cannon. That lent the U.S. soldiers the strength to storm the city from the west and east. Once in the city, U.S. soldiers fought house to house: each was cleared by throwing lighted shells, which worked like grenades. Eventually, these actions drove and trapped Ampudia's men into the city's central plaza, where howitzer shelling forced Ampudia to negotiate. Taylor agreed to allow the Mexican Army to evacuate and to an 8-week armistice in return for the surrender of the city. Under pressure from Washington, Taylor broke the armistice and occupied the city of Saltillo, southwest of Monterrey. Santa Anna blamed the loss of Monterrey and Saltillo on Ampudia and demoted him to command a small artillery battalion.


Scott's campaign
Rather than reinforce Taylor's army for a continued advance, President Polk sent a second army under General Winfield Scott, which was transported to the port of Veracruz by sea, to begin an invasion of the Mexican heartland. Scott performed the first major amphibious landing in the history of the United States in preparation for the Siege of Veracruz. A group of 12,000 volunteer and regular soldiers successfully offloaded supplies, weapons and horses near the walled city. Included in the invading force were Robert E. Lee, George Meade, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.
The city was defended by Mexican General Juan Morales with 3,400 men. Mortars and naval guns under Commodore Matthew C. Perry were used to reduce the city walls and harass defenders. The city replied as best it could with its own artillery. The effect of the extended barrage destroyed the will of the Mexican side to fight against a numerically superior force, and they surrendered the city after 12 days under siege. U.S. troops suffered 80 casualties, while the Mexican side had around 180 killed and wounded, about half of whom were civilian. During the siege, the U.S. side began to fall victim to yellow fever.

In May, Scott pushed on to Puebla, the second largest city in Mexico. Because of the citizens' hostility to Santa Anna, the city capitulated without resistance on May 1. Mexico City was laid open in the Battle of Chapultepec and subsequently occupied.

Winfield Scott became an American national hero after his victories in the Mexican War, and later became military governor of occupied Mexico City.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received US $15,000,000, half the amount of money that the U.S. had attempted to offer in return for New Mexico and California alone three years earlier. This led a leading U.S. newpaper, the Whig intelligencer to conclude sardonically that;

“ We take nothing by conquest.... Thank God.[5][6] ”

The exchange of land is known as the Mexican Cession. Mexicans living in the conquered lands could choose to return to Mexico or stay and become American citizens. Article X was stricken from the treaty before it was ratified by the U.S. Senate. These articles promised that the United States would recognize Mexican and Spanish land grants.
In 1853, in what became known as The Gadsden Purchase, the United States paid an additional $10 million to Mexico to purchase land in what is now southern Arizona and southern New Mexico for the construction of a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. The purchase was also designed to further compensate Mexico for the lands taken by the U.S. after the Mexican-American War.

ResultsMexico lost more than 500,000 square miles (about 1,300,000 square km) of land, almost half of its territory. The annexed territories contained about 1,000 Mexican families in California and 7,000 in New Mexico. A few moved back to Mexico; the great majority remained in the US. Descendants of these Mexican families have risen to prominence in American life, such as United States Senator Ken Salazar, and his brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, both from Colorado.

A month before the end of the war, Polk was criticized in a United States House of Representatives amendment to a bill praising Major General Zachary Taylor for "a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."
This criticism, in which Congressman Abraham Lincoln played an important role, followed congressional scrutiny of the war's beginnings, including factual challenges to claims made by President Polk[7] [8]. The vote followed party lines, with all Whigs supporting the amendment. Lincoln's attack haunted his future campaigns in the heavily Democratic state of Illinois, and was cited by enemies well into his presidency.[9] The stand did not cost Lincoln his Congressional seat in Illinois' Seventh Congressional District; the district was the only place in Illinois where a Whig could win high office, and party leaders agreed to one-term limits for Whig representatives there. Lincoln was succeeded by a Democrat, but the Seventh Congressional District voted for Zachary Taylor, a Whig, that fall.[10]

In much of the United States, victory and the acquisition of new land brought a surge of patriotism (the country had also acquired the southern half of the Oregon Country in 1846 through a treaty with Great Britain).
Victory seemed to fulfill citizens' belief in their country's Manifest Destiny. While Whig Ralph Waldo Emerson rejected war "as a means of achieving America's destiny," he accepted that "most of the great results of history are brought about by discreditable means." Although the Whigs had opposed the war, they made Zachary Taylor their presidential candidate in the election of 1848, praising his military performance while muting their criticism of the war itself.

In the 1880s, Ulysses S. Grant, who had served under Taylor's command, called the conflict an evil war that had brought God's punishment on the United States in the form of the American Civil War:

The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times. [3]

In the "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" published in 1885, Grant recalled his actions in the Mexican War with regret:

Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory. [4]

Many of the generals of the latter war had fought in the former, including Grant, George B. McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, George Meade, and Robert E. Lee, as well as the future Confederate President Jefferson Davis. In Mexico City's Chapultepec Park, the Monument to the Heroic Cadets commemorates the heroic sacrifice of six teenaged military cadets who fought to their deaths rather than surrender to American invaders during the Battle of Chapultepec Castle on September 18, 1847. The monument is an important patriotic site in Mexico. On March 5, 1947, nearly one hundred years after the battle, U.S. President Harry S. Truman placed a wreath at the monument and stood for a moment of silence.

Combatants

On the American side, the war was fought by regulars and the volunteers, with the majority of atrocities being committed by volunteers. U.S. soldiers' memoirs describe cases of scalping innocent civilians, the rape and murder of women, the murder of children, the burning of homes, and the desecrating of Catholic religious objects and buildings. One officer's diary records:

"We reached Burrita about 5 pm, many of the Louisiana volunteers were there, a lawless drunken rabble. They had driven away the inhabitants, taken possession of their houses, and were emulating each other in making beasts of themselves.[11]

John L. O'Sullivan, a vocal proponent of Manifest Destiny, later recollected:

"The regulars regarded the volunteers with importance and contempt... [The volunteers] robbed Mexicans of their cattle and corn, stole their fences for firewood, got drunk, and killed several inoffensive inhabitants of the town in the streets."
Many of the volunteers were unwanted and considered poor soldiers. The expression "Just like Gaines's army" came to refer to something useless, the phrase having originated when a group of untrained and unwilling Louisiana troops were rejected and sent back by General Taylor at the beginning of the war.

One of the contributing factors to loss of the war by Mexico was the inferiority of their weapons. The Mexican army was using British muskets from the Napoleonic Wars; furthermore, Mexican troops were trained to fire with their muskets held loosely at hip-level[citation needed], while U.S. soldiers used the more accurate method of butting the rifle up to the shoulder and taking aim along the barrel. In contrast to the aging Mexican standard-issue infantry weapon, some U.S. troops had the latest U.S.-manufactured breech-loading flintlock "Hall's" rifles and Percussion cap Model 1841 rifles. In the later stages of the war, U.S. cavalry and officers were issued Colt revolvers, of which the U.S. army had ordered 1000 in 1846. Throughout the war, the superiority of the U.S. artillary often carried the day.

The Saint Patrick's Battalion (San Patricios) was a group of several hundred immigrant soldiers, the majority Irish, who deserted the U.S. Army because of ill-treatment or sympathetic leanings to fellow Mexican Catholics. They joined the Mexican army. Most were killed in the Battle of Churubusco; about 100 were captured by the U.S. and roughly half were hanged as deserters.

During the war political quarrels arose regarding the disposition of conquered Mexico. A strong "All-Mexico" movement urged annexation of the entire territory. Abolitionists opposed that position and fought for the exclusion of slavery from any territory absorbed by the United States. In 1847 the House of Representatives passed the Wilmot Proviso, stipulating that none of the territory acquired should be open to slavery. The Senate avoided the issue, and a late attempt to add it to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was defeated.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the result of Nicholas Trist's unauthorized negotiations. It was approved by the U.S. Senate on Mar. 10, 1848, and ratified by the Mexican Congress on May 25. Mexico's cession of California and New Mexico and its recognition of U.S. sovereignty over all of Texas north of the Rio Grande formalized the addition of 3.1 million km2 (1.2 million mi2) of territory to the United States. In return the United States agreed to pay $15 million and assumed the claims of its citizens against Mexico. A final territorial adjustment between Mexico and the United States was made by the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.

Thursday, June 28, 2007


















The Hidden Anti-Latino Agenda by Republicans and Xenophobic extremists..Where are the Latino representation on this Country? How far the Extremist, Xenophobics, Racist will go? Don't worry they had been already invaded your privacy, home, work, and your Latin America Country. It's coming to Town. Racism against Latinos growing a high speed.

At a time when immigration reform proposals have been moved so far to the right that even conservative Republicans could support them, out comes the White House with its own remarkably hawkish set of ideas.

For a president who supposedly wants comprehensive reform passed this year, George W. Bush is going out of his way.

The Democratic-controlled Congress was already considering a House bi-partisan proposal that is far more conservative than the comprehensive immigration reform package passed in the Senate last year. It was being hailed by editorial writers as a reasonable compromise to finally fix the nation's broken immigration system.
But instead of supporting it, the White House is now trying to swing the pendulum even further to the right. Last week, the administration floated its own even more conservative proposal, one that has no chance of getting approval from the Democratic majority in Congress.
Clearly, it's all about politics. Republicans are naturally worried that — after bashing immigrants for so long — once Unlawful immigrants become citizens, they are going to vote for Democrats. So the White House has been floating an immigration plan that would make it harder for them to gain citizenship.
In meetings with congressional GOP leaders, administration officials have reportedly floated ideas to further appease the xenophobic hawks. These ideas are clearly for the consumption of those who have a deeper, more sinister agenda, which is to slow the empowerment of Latinos.
After all, we know that's really what the conservatives are worried about. Since most Unlawful immigrants are Latinos, it's about the fear and suppressing Latino empowerment. It's not about giving legal status to some 12 million people who are already living and working here, people who are essential to the success of our economy.
It's about denying them, their children and the relatives they will bring from other countries, the right to vote.

Bush now seems to be telling his hawkish friends, "hey, no problem, we can delay that — indefinitely."
Of course, what they are doing is making the offer that will eventually be made to Unlawful immigrants so unattractive that many of them simply won't take it. And we'll still have a huge Unlawful immigration problem.
Even the House legislation, hailed as the middle ground proposal that all had been seeking, runs the risk of being rejected by many Unlawful immigrants.

That's because the bill, sponsored by Rep.
Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill., requires Unlawful immigrants to return to their home countries, perhaps for only a few months or years, and then return here legally.
For many Unlawful immigrants who are poor and have families, the cost of returning home and coming back is unaffordable. Of course, almost all these proposals call for a fine of at least $2,000 for every Unlawful immigrant who submits to a legalization plan. A family of five Unlawful immigrants would be paying at least $10,000 to get a green card and work here legally. Based on cost alone, many of them may choose to remain underground. Did you call this Amnesty? Nooooooooo.
The Flake-Gutierrez bill would tighten the borders and toughen enforcement of immigration laws. It would establish many of the hurdles conservatives have been asking for, especially requiring new plans to toughen workplace enforcement and border security to be satisfied before its citizen provision kicks in. It would require a major buildup of border patrol officers and technology at the Mexican border, a system for employers to electronically verify whether job applicants are eligible to work here, and tougher penalties for many immigration-related violations.

The measure keeps many of the hurdles that were already in last year's bill. Applicants for legalization would still be required to pay a $500 fee, a $1,500 fine and any back taxes they owe. They would still be required to clear a security and background check, to learn English and civic, submit proof of past employment and maintain a felony-free record. Only after satisfying those requirements for six years would they be allowed to apply for permanent residency status, which could lead to citizenship five years later. It means they would have to wait at least 11 years for the right to vote as Americans.
But as expected, nothing was gained from taking this comprehensive reform proposal further to the right — because the hawks are still calling it "amnesty." And they will continue resisting any kind of legislation that will eventually create more Latino and more Democratic voters.
That's why the Bush administration is still trying to please its conservative extremist base by floating a proposal that would make Unlawful immigrants wait many more years before they could become U.S. citizens.
Nevertheless, even that proposal is threatening to those who fear Latino political empowerment. Even if that empowerment is delayed, expecting conservative extremists to come to a middle ground on immigration reform is absurd.
They have a deeper, more sinister, Raids across the Country, Put kids in jail like criminals as well as their relatives even do they are U.S. Citizens, Their Worth's solution is coming if we not acting know. They just want them out of this Country banning their legal and Human rights to deport them to their Countries

Tuesday, June 26, 2007



















Lou Dobbs wife Illegal Lawbreaker and the term of Illegal.

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger edited by me.

As noted earlier, Lou Dobbs is upset that more media outlets aren't using the term "illegal alien," instead often opting for the term "undocumented immigrant." Dobbs suggests a conspiracy by the media. But the fact is that critics of the media don't consistently use "illegal alien," either. The term often gets shortened to merely "illegals." (See, e.g., Wash Times, "Bush amnesty blamed for rise in illegals"; Wash Times, "Senate illegals bill near complete"; WorldNetDaily, "Arizona county helping illegals, critic charges"; KTAR, "Employer sanctions for hiring illegals stuck in Senate"; and the lovely article "Illegals go home" that has run in various outlets.)

Supporters of this term defend its use, pointing out that it carries some degree of descriptive accuracy. People labeled as "illegals" have indeed violated a law; therefore, suggest users, such people may accurately be called illegals. Is this reasonable?
This argument is not unreasonable on the surface. It is strongest if we accord similar treatment to other groups. That is, the reasonableness of this approach depends on whether we typically make one's violation of law a primary or sole descriptor.

For example, if the principle is to be applied consistently, Kenneth Lay should be described as "an illegal" because of his conviction for a crime. So his wife Debi Dobbs is illegal for her conviction on a criminal possession of a weapon.

Scooter Libby should similarly be called "an illegal." In fact, one might expect proponents of the usage of illegals (in the context of immigration) to support this broader usage as well. After all, they seem quite concerned that a person's status vis-a-vis law be used as that person's primary or only descriptor.

The potential application of the "illegals" label is even broader, really. Immigration critics don't confine their use to people actually convicted of crimes. Anyone who violates immigration laws -- whether convicted or not -- is subject to the term. For consistency's sake, the same should apply to people who violate any other laws.

So both Kenneth Lay (convicted), Lou's Wife Debie and other unconvicted violators of corporate law should be called illegals. Let's apply the term, consistently, to anyone who has ever violated a law. Anyone who has violated a law at any point -- speeders, jaywalkers, late tax filers -- should henceforth be called "an illegal." Under this definition, I'm an illegal, and you probably are, too. (The term probably covers most Americans.)

Meanwhile, those who haven't ever broken any law should be rewarded by being called "legals" in general parlance. Let's raise compliance with law above race, religion, gender, or age, as one's primary identifying attribute. I'm sure that Dobbs and other proponents of the "illegals" usage will be happy to extend it to its logical limit -- why wouldn't they?
And if you haven't had your daily dose of douchebaggery. Bonus points for noticing where he confuses noncitizens with illegal immigrants, a slip that's telling, where he implies the concept of dual citizenship is disloyal, and where he pulls out the old "immigrants don't want to learn English" canard, because Lou Dobbs has never gotten near an adult ESL class in his life and gets his conception of immigrants from right-winger blogs and space aliens that visit him in his sleep.
I have only one other question, though -- what exactly should we call the inconsistent folk who support the apparently racist approach of labeling immigration violators as "illegals," but see no need to use that label on any violators of other laws?
Hmm.

I suggest we call such people, "bastards, Xenophobics, racist."