ILLEGAL ALIEN IRRATIONALITY

"'...As indigenous people, we are not immigrants...When we talk about homeland security, we really needed that in 1492.' -- Alma Montes, a member of an Aztec dancing group that performed near the rally" -- from the ILLEGAL ALIENS' PROTEST IN CHICAGO from March 10, 2006 (further, read Michelle Malkin).

News Article with Misleading Headline:
"TENS OF THOUSANDS MARCH IN DOWNTOWN CHICAGO IN SUPPORT OF IMMIGRATION RIGHTS"
-- From their very protest, what is of issue is that iillegal aliens protest lawful requirements for immigration, among other legalities that identify their wrongdoing as illegal aliens in the United States ("immigration rights" is a misnomer in this case because they claim they aren't "immigrants" and denounce the categorization -- the protestors are not legal residents nor citizens of the United States so instead of being called "immigrants," which they protest -- but in effect, it's true, they aren't "immigrants" -- so call them what they are and that is illegal aliens).

To read the truth about who is behind this denigration of our nation as country based upon the rule of law, look at this trash-filled website:
THE MILITANT by "Socialist Workers Party" who dishonestly (and irrationally) declare that 'Americans who do not condone illegal immigration are "anti-immigrant."' It's this outrageous, communist, socialist antithesis-to-our-representational-form-of-government that denigrates much lawful procedure in the United States (and, therefore, our Constitution) and so it is little suprise that, behind this "pro illegall alien" defamation of American immigration laws and requirements is an organization like the "Socialist Workers Party" and worse,also the Democrat Party members in Illinois (and elsewhere, to state the obvious).

I'd intended to write about this on March 10th, after reading the news and viewing the photographs from the event in Chicago, Illinois, so excuse my delay here. But read that irrational, foolish statement, above, by Alma Montes.

Her statement is revealing as to the essence of the racial problem, and it's manifested through illegal immigration to the United States: racial status, racial terms used by racially motivated and oriented persons (Alma Montes is one of those) to declare racial animosities, and, being a racist, Ms. Montes declares her denigration of "immigrants" in general. A racist territory can't exist if it's "infiltrated" by the 'dratted immigrants,' so Morales and others like her make great efforts to be clear that they are not immigrants, they are racists.

About the "Aztecs" and Ms. Morales' irrational twist of logic in that regard, the Aztecs are not "indiginous" to North America. Her "indiginous" "status" is relevant to where her multi-generational ancestors stayed for the longest period of time in human history but it was not North America but what is now the nation of Mexico: Central America. If there is any claim to "indiginy" by people who today claim to be "Aztecs," it's Mexico so let them stay or return to today's Mexico and lay claim to resources and "rights" there but they bear no relationship throughtout time nor by origin with North America except in their own fancy and by their own racial demands -- and racial superiority has nothing to do with whether someone is subject to the laws of the United States or isn't so the entire issue is irrelevant to the protestations by the "100,000" illegal aliens in Chicago, Illinois on March 10, 2006. They are either incapable of understanding and valuing our national structure or they are rejecting of it but neither of those qualifies someone to enter the country illegally nor to excuse their illegality once they are here.

There is ample evidence archaeologically (scroll to the bottom of this entry for statistics as to dated discoveries), culturally and even biologically to substantiate that not only were the "Aztecs" as Ms. Morales refers to her racial type not "indiginous" to North America, but that the "Azetcs" were routinely at war with the various people in the Southwest and West of North America in times past. As in, they were driven back time and time again by other people who inhabited North America after repeated attempts at invasion of Northern land and Northern peoplles who lived there (and from what the archaological record shows today, those people in North America's Southwestern regions were there long before the "Aztecs" organized in Central and South America.

Moreover, Ms. Montes and her racial group are misinforming others by way of their racially-motivated statements. What Ms. Montes and her peers declare is not accurate, not in any sense, except in their own subjective, "racial superiority" references (meaning, their statements are entirely subjective and based upon their subjective racial context that their racial type -- which is in and of itself quite mixed among Latin, European and Asian peoples producing what we have today as "Hispanics" from Mexico and other Central American countries, mostly). They declare along racially dividing terms based upon their subjective perception of specialized DNA that, from what Ms. Montes has to say as did the other illegal aliens in Chicago, seems to set them in motion as a special class of people who are above the laws of the United States or at best intolerant of it, as they are of other human beings (American citizens and other "immigrants").

And whatever happened to the "Aztecs" anyway? They depleted their natural resources in Central America and waged ongoing wars with one another in small encampments after being relatively contained from the South and from the North by other human beings after "Aztecs" attempted aggressions in both directions, and, they eventually lost concentrated community numbers by dissembling their groups into rural life in Central America.

However, their origin is from human migrations from South Asia that occured far later than other human migrations to the Americas from the West from Northern Asia, Northern Europe and from the East from Northern Europe. Who later became known as the "Aztecs" ere not the "first" human beings in Central America. In very real terms, the "Aztecs" are no more "indiginous" to the Americas than are the people of today's Hawaiin Islands. They represent long-standing populations in certain geographical areas of our globe but they hardly represent "the first" human populations -- which I explore here only because this issue is persistently contested by some individuals within the context of lawlessness and/or special privilege to bypass civic and legal requirements in today's United States of America.

In fact, the archaological record, so far (scroll), has revealed that the first identified human beings to South America were from the continent of Australia, were the very same people who today are known to the rest of our human world as "Australian Aborigines" and their descendants can still be found today in South America. That doesn't mean that people from today's country of Australia can and should arrive in the United States (or any other country in North or South America) by whatever illegal means possible and then to protest the immigration and citizenship requirments of the United States or any other country in North or South America by way of laying claim to "indiginous" status in South America. Although, to be clear here, the Australian Aborigines are the earliest known human migrants to South America and that was long, long before the cultures later known as the "Aztecs" populated Central America nor even the Incas in South America. The Australian Aborigines arrived in South America long before any other human populations did, from anywhere else. But they arrived in Australia even earlier by way of Africa-to-Indonesia-to-Australia.

As to North America, the earliest human DNA identified so far to modern science identifies a mixture of Northern European and Northern Asian ancestry to North American human populations of later development. No "Aztecs" among that ancestry.

About "immigrants," why is that a bad thing, a denigrating term, to Ms. Montes and her peers? They disregard legal immigration, they revile the very idea of that (they can follow a legal path to immigraton and citizenship just as can anyone and yet have chosen not to but decide to arrive in the U.S. anyway, abandoning a legal process to do so) they seem to express that to their view, to be an "immigrant" is to be from Ireland and to be "white" because as "Aztecs" they're not "immigrants" but are, rather, "indigenous."

That would make some sense if they were protesting in Mexico City, in the country of Mexico, or in the country of Guatemala or similar but they're protesting their nonsensical terms in Chicago, Illinois in the country of the United States. That is in North America. North America is not a country. The United States, instead, is a country. The problem with Ms. Montes and her peers is that they reject the terminoogy of realism: no country has "inidginous people" but a continent does and that's Africa, where homo sapiens are known to have originated (unless and until our body of knowledge is changed by newer developments from the current body of knowledge). The stumbling block in contemporary times is the multi-culturalism accommodations for "indiginous" people but the facts are that there really are no "indiginous" people outside of Africa and even as to North and South America, there's ample archaological and biological evidence that even the cultures that today refer to themselves as "indigenous" are not because they are predated on North, Central and South America by human populations from Northern Europe and Northern Asia (all) and from Australia as to South America.

So, in reality, there are only "indigineous" human beings to the continent of Africa and that includes all known homo sapiens walking our Earth today and at times past. But that does not mean that all known human beings today can nor are appearing in countries in Africa and declaring ownership of their lands.

IIn reality, again, all human migrations out of Africa that have settled elsewhere and specialized into various racial types that we know today have produced later waves of cultures and types of humans,.in turn, that have setled elsewhere in all parts of our globe. And, no human being alive today is "all one" racial type given that our human population is known to have been reduced at several times in the course of human history to mere thousands of individuals, before again repopulating the Earth.

But, to further uninflate Ms. Montes and her peers' irrational claims to racial superiority and territorial rights over other human beings and to the continent of North America, among the earliest human skeletal remains in North America -- that resemble those of a modern European male -- are from the Meadowcroft site in what is today Pennsylvania (that's North America, Ms. Montes), "Kenneweth Man" from what is today the state of Washington, at the age of 9,300 years old also described as resembling today's "modern European man" in appearance (certainly not Asian) (please scroll to the end of this thread for more) -- while the Olmec Pyramids in today's country of Mexico (that's Central America) are a mere 3,200 years old.

All this aside, and returnig to more modern times, let's look again more closely at what Ms. Montes and her peers are claiming: they claim an indifference and imperviousness to "immigration" requirements and declare that their illegal status in the country of the United States -- per the current laws in place that identify who is a citizen, who is a legal resident, who is a legal immigrant pending citizenship and who is not any of those but is in the country illegally instead -- is not important. That because they "work" and "pay taxes" and are present in the country illegally they own the United States and can do what they please, how they want to do it, that their behavior isn't "illegal" because they think their ancestors owned (what, Chicago?) the continent of North America.

Perhaps Ms. Montes and her peers own homes that someone else might prefer to occupy and drive nice cars that others might like to operate at will, and wear a finer overcoat than someone else does who may prefer the coat of Ms. Montes to their own and perhaps have kitchen pantries in their homes full of food that others might want to have for their supper.

So, what would be wrong, by Ms. Montes' terms, if others walk into the homes of Ms. Montes and her peers and throw Ms. Montes and her peers outside? About those coats, kitchen pantry foods and cars, why shouldn't whoever wants them just move in, eat the food, take the coats and cars and leave Ms. Montes and her peers outside without any of that?

The reason why is because we live in a nation of laws, our country, the United States of America, has laws that penalize people who violate them and most people don't violate them because they have values that disallow theft and abuse and denigration of other human beings, to include their property. For the rest, fear of punishment because of those laws keeps them from doing their worst upon others, or at least, penalizes them when they do.

That explains the organizaton that makes for our country, in a nutshell: a nation of laws, as declared by the United States Constitution. A nation of laws. And that to be a part of that nation is to declare loyalty to the Constitution, which includes what's writen in the Constitution and that is that we are a nation of laws and declare to abide by them or suffer the consequences of punishment as defined by those laws.

If a person doesn't value citizenship in the country under those terms then go to another country that better suits the terms of your expectations for citizenship. Or, work to change the laws that exist in the United States to improve the conditions. But, to declare an imperviousness to laws and legality and indifference to citizenship and worse, to declare a respect for that in defiance of the rest, is to declare enemy status to the country itself.

About the continent of North America, Ms. Montes and her peers need to read a bit more about who their "Aztec" ancestors were and where they came from but to help out a bit here, they didn't come from Chicago, Illinois; by what is known today from the archaological record about past human populations in the Americas, the "Aztecs" weren't all too welcome on the North American continent, either, at many times in our human past. Wars, invasions, even cannibalism of those peoples conquered briefly or occupied, there is a dark legacy of the "Aztecs" from Central America never having established a tradition of trade, peaceful coexistence and welcome interchange with the human populations that predated and coincided with them to their North in North America and to their South in South America. The "Aztecs" made those they conquered engage in games for display after which they were dismembered while still alive and even after death, after which their bodies were used for more sport and additiional display, even puppetry. Ms. Montes and her peers doing their dancing in Chicago, Illinois on March 10, 2006 isn't a wholesome sight with the history of her "Aztec" legacy in mind.

Read:

CALICO (site in today's California): A Statistical Analysis of the Lithics from the Calico Site (200,000-year Old Site In North America and no "Aztecs" found there and no confirmed human remains of any type, per this article's conclusion)

THE RED-HEADED MUMMY
-- Northern Europeans (more of the "red haired" people -- who have also been found in Northeastern North America to predate other remains) in North and Central Asia predate other known skeletal remains in that continent; no "Aztecs" there.

THE SAMURAI AND THE AINU
-- no "Aztecs" in what is today the nation of Japan, on the continents of (Northern) Asia, (Northern) Europe and later in the regions of the North American Yukon and the entire continent of North America

SKULLS IN SOUTH AMERICA TELL NEW MIGRATION TALE
-- no "Aztecs" here either

NORTH AMERICA SETTLED BY JUST 70 PEOPLE, STUDY CONCLUDES
-- and they were not "Aztecs"

FIRST AMERICANS
-- these weren't "Aztecs," either

IMMIGRANTS FROM THE OTHER SIDE (Clovis Is Solutrean?)
-- Probably most intolerable to the Ms. Montes and her peers today are the facts that indicate that people from Europe may just have been the first wave of immigrants to North America; or, perhaps coincided with the known "70 people" from Northern Asia/Northern European continent (either or both ways, the "white man" -- to use Ms. Montes and peers' language here -- was "here first" as to North American human populations and the "Aztecs" were not so much as a dream in someone's eye at that time, if ever).

IBERIA, NOT SIBERIA?
-- "A look at the evidence supporting a late Pleistocene migration to the New World (that includes the continent of North America, to be clear to Ms. Montes and her peers) from Europe"
-- predates the "Aztecs" in Central America again

ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHAOLOGY OF THE AMERICAS (that includes North, Central and South America)
-- THE WINDOVER SITE AT TITUSVILLE, FLORIDA (that means, in North America)
-- ARCHAEOLOGY FINDS NEW PICTURE OF PALEO INDIANS
-- A NEW CULTURAL MODEL FOR THE ANCIENTS ("Bye, Bye Berengia")
----- Disproving the Berengia ("Yukon Land Bridge Migration Route" as source of first Americans) Theory
A New Culture Model for the Ancients

"The primary significance of Windover is the seeming sophisticated culture of these people who lived there 8,100 years ago and before. Windover dates an advanced culture in North America that precedes any previously discovered anywhere else in the World. Their egalitarian culture paints a new picture of ancient people of the Americas. Until now, the model of ancient peoples pictured roving bands of hunters, grunting semi-savages, having no culture to speak of. Of course, the 4,700 BP pyramid builders of Egypt had advanced further in terms of architectural achievements and they had pictograph symbols to convey meaning, but they came along 3,400 years after the Windover people. Windover revealed a culture of people in the New World, twice as old as the Egyptian culture. Of course, there are artful paintings of animals and symbols in caves that are attributed to the Neanderthals, but little else to associate with Culture.

"Now we know that 8,000 years ago, the Windover people wove fine cloth. They buried their dead ceremonially. They cared for each other by indulging and taking care of the handicapped. And they adorned the bodies of their dead with fine clothing, placing them in special positions that were spiritual to them, and things that would be useful in an after life were buried with them.

"Logic places them in Florida for quite some time before they buried their dead in that peat bog. How long? 1000 years? 5000? Could the ancestors of the Windover people have been the Clovis of New Mexico 11,000 years ago? Time, distance, and logic says not. The Windover people might be the ancestors of the Seminoles. They might be related to other Paleo Indian cultures of North America, past and present. There is sufficient human DNA to find out. The ancient human DNA is of such quality as to allow genetic cloning, or to make comparisons with present living ethnic groups, or to test kinship with other ancient peoples. But the latter would require usable DNA, and this treasure trove seems to be the oldest group of human DNA ever found anywhere in the World. Also, the artifacts collection has an abundance of the oldest fabrics ever found in the Western hemisphere...8,000 year old cloth woven as fine as in a cotton t-shirt! At first it was thought that the clothing was hand woven, but that does seem to be possible. They must have used some sort of apparatus, a loom, to weave such fine cloth.

"Now we will move on to some other Archaeology sites and times:

A Table of Archaeology Discoveries
*Indicates actual human remains found and dated - Site and place - Time before Present (BP)

*The Pyramids
Egypt 4,700 (a base line)
Mounds
Eastern United States 4,200
*Olmec Pyramids
Mexico 3,200
*The Windover People
Titusville, Florida 8,100
*Kennewick Man
Washington State 9,300
Old Crow Site
Old Crow, Yukon 20,000
Bluefish Caves
Old Crow, Yukon 13,000
Cactus Hill
Virginia 15,500
Meadowcroft
Pennsylvania 19,600
Manix Basin
California 18,000
Monte Verde
Chile 15,000
Clovis
New Mexico 11,600
Wendover
Utah 11,000
Gypsum Cave
Nevada 10,500
Sandia Culture
New Mexico 10,000
Folsom
New Mexico 10,000
*The Ice Man
Italian Alps 4,500

Early Human Species
Neanderthal 200,000 to 35,000 BP
*Cro Magnon 32,000
Modern Man (Homo Sapien) 50,000 BP to Present

"Of course, this table represents only a few archaeology sites that have produced provable times of ancient human life, and one should not discount the dates of the ones that did not produce actual human remains. Other evidence at many of the sites are compelling and in such abundance that the dates are not arguable .

"The theory goes that in Europe, Modern man overlapped both the Neanderthal and the Cro Magnon species during a brief 18,000 years span. This overlap period, 50,000 to 32,000 years BP, could become more significant as archaeology sites in the Americas produce more dated evidence. Archaeology of the New World is beginning to push closer to the theoretical time lines of these three species of early man. If the Old Crow site, or any other, should date 27,000 years, then the question will emerge; 'Were the people Neanderthal, Homo Sapien, or a separate New World species?'

"How does all of this relate to the Arctic Northern Region? Well, we have that pesky theory...that the New World was devoid of human life until the Ice Age came.

"The Beringia Theory: A land bridge (Beringia) between Siberia and Alaska was exposed by a lowering of the World's sea levels. Then roving bands of Asian hunters crossed the land bridge into Alaska. These roving bands then followed the animals East and Southward to populate the central Continent, and thence into Central and South America. This theory has held up for nearly a century and has been defended quite vigorously, until recently."

Grim and horrible:
"THE ENIGMA OF AZTEC SACRIFICE," a history of human sacrifice and cannibalism among the Aztecs in Central America.