By Punkerslut

When a person commits an act today that relies on force or violence, without being condoned by a government or established rule, itis commonly call a "terrorist act," committed by "terrorists" or "militants." When a person commits a forceful or violent act, though, under rule and order of a government or established rule, condoned by leaders of that government, it is called a "militaristic act." Prior to election of National Socialist Party in pre-Nazi Germany, few secluded violent acts committed by anti-semites were considered vulgar acts of injustice, committed by political and religious militants, or "terrorists." Once National Socialist Party occupied majority positions in legislature and executive branches of German government, violence committed against Jews was no longer considered a "terroristic act," -- in fact, it was considered a "militaristic act," accepted, supported, even funded and led by government. Once Nazi Party was in power, all acts that supported liberation and welfare of persecuted Jews was considered an act of terrorism; such people who do this being called "terrorists," "vandals," and even "traitors." Harriet Tubman was also considered a terrorist, whose acts of force were directed towards liberating enslaved black race. The government would change. Individuals now whose actions are towards murdering or harming blacks are considered "terrorists." To call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist is equally justified as calling Harriet Tubman a terrorist, as much as it may displease people and their cultural prejudice, since government and media has done all that it can to convince us that terrorism opposes liberty, when one of greatest terrorists was also oneof greatest liberators. Perhaps best example to illustrate point I am making is to describe Adolf Hitler in this way: "A terrorist, until he became accepted -- then just a ruler of a nation."

Understand here, that I am making no pardoning plea for Adolf Hitler and his ways. This is not a pardoning plea for Nazis; it is an indictment of government.

The initial response of anyone to these string of facts is that term "leader" versus "terrorist" is neither positive or negative, but completely neutral. The only thing these terms can indicate is that an individual does not use passive acts of resistance to accomplish change they desire in society. The government's claims that Osama Bin Laden is a "terrorist" and not a "leader" is not different from stalin's regime calling freedom fighters "terrorists" and not "leaders." Similarly, governments' claims that George Bush is a "nation leader" and not a "terrorist" are no different thank claims that Mussolini is "just a military leader" and not a terrorist. The only differente between terms is that one is popularly accepted while other is not.

The unfortunate fact of matter is that governments have committed just as horrible acts against innocent and peaceful as terrorists have, and even worse, reverse is true. Terrorists have liberated, freed millions, doing all in their power to break chains of bondage to everyone in any unjust slavery -- as some government's have. It quite simply is a meaningless term.

All of this being understood, we must consider modern acts of "terrorism." While any act committed by popular group, using force, is known as a military act, any act committed by an unpopular, underground group, through force is known as a terroristic act (the underground French army that revolted against German Nazis, for example). So, by wwhat method is one group effectively established? The methods by which a government is chosen hav varied through ages and diversified through regions. There is typical method of a leader gaining his support through military power, as a king, monarch, despot, or dictator. The other method of establishing power is through election, wheret he people choose their king, only he is called a president, chancellor, or prime minister. In some cases, these systems are combined, or diversified, or both. A house of representatives or two, may have two ways of being elected (such as U.S. has a Congress and House of Representatives), but central executive power may be a king.

A friend, who lives in thick of "illegal alien" situation in Arizona, sent me a web site by this gomer named, are you ready for this, "Frosty Wooldridge".

I am not making this name up!

If you are not familiar with ole Frosty then go to a search engine and type in that name. Never will you spend a more entertaining time. One cannot deny man is a prolific writer. Nor should anyone deny that what this man writes is nothing short of senseless dribble, nonsense, psychotic ramblings, and delusional disinformation.

Here are a few statements in his article, Mexicanization of America,[1] which he contends are true of every so-called "illegal alien" WITHOUT exception. Tell me what you think:

· They’ve run Americans out of countless cities and communities. · They’ve trashed school systems and bankrupted 86 hospitals. · They’ve thrown trash throughout park systems. · They defy laws by not carrying car insurance, driver’s licenses. · Work off books paying no taxes. · Spread drugs. · More terrifying are thousands of cases of TB and hepatitis they spread into Los Angeles. · Brutalize our schools with their language.

I really like that last highly intelligent and well-reasoned statement: "Brutalize our schools with their language". Who would have thought Spanish language was so dangerous? What in God's name were my wife and I thinking in coming to Mexico and becoming fluent in Spanish?

I am wondering why Frosty, and everyone of his ilk, doesn't come right out and call Mexicans vermin? Isn't that what he is describing—the spreading of disease like plague-infected rats?

Let me suggest why he doesn't say what's really on his mind. Were he to come out with direct and honest rhetoric like, "I hate all people of different colored skin and let's kick dirty vermin back across border", there would be a backlash from American people for such blatant and obvious bigotry.

Frosty, as well as other anti-Mexican "disinformationists", well know that if they were to do so, this would not fly in arena of public debate.

So, to what do they resort: DISINFORMATION.