Miguel Contreras, head of Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, shown at amnesty rally in Los Angeles, June 10, 2000.

Juan Jose Gutierrez, One Stop Immigration, leads March on Washington, October, 1997, demanding amnesty for illegal aliens

Juan Jose Gutierrez, now with AFL/CIO SEIU, interviewed by AmericanPatrol.com, June 10, 2000, at amnesty rally in Los Angeles

Antonio Villaraigosa at March on Washington, October 2000 amnesty rally.

June 24, 2001

Jorge Castaneda

Rabid Mexican Marxist reconquista Hear this guy's demands

This past week saw developments on the immigration front that could have a major impact on people in Los Angeles, not the least of which was a demand by Jorge Castañeda that the United States treat immigration as a bilateral, if not multilateral issue. This Marxist echoes the old saw, "what is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable." Any nation that does not control its borders is not a nation. What Castañeda is saying is that the United States is not a nation. I am convinced that those who run the Los Angeles Times agree with this premise.

Mexico is making demands for what can only be described as amnesty for millions. What will happen if we refuse? Will the unions shut down Los Angeles as was threatened by Juan Jose Gutierrez? Should the People of Los Angeles know about this threat? Had they read the ad killed by the Times, they would.

On Monday, I appeared on the O'Reilly Factor on Fox Network News with Newt Gingrich as host and accused Mexico of declaring war on the United States"an accusation that went unchallenged by the former Speaker. On Friday, the O'Reilly Factor repeated a segment in which Dick Morris reported that he advised the White House to put troops on the border. (By the way, I believe this was just another of Morris's self-serving deceptions.)

Does Mexico really believe that its nation "extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders" as Mexican president Zedillo said? Is there a chance of war with Mexico? If our ad had appeared in the Daily News, Los Angeles voters would have at least had the opportunity to consider such a thing.

Today's Times has nothing about these and other major developments on the issue of U.S,/Mexico relations despite the fact that Los Angeles is ground zero in this growing conflict. It is obvious that the Times does not trust its readers to deal with the truth intelligently. Instead it spends its time and resources focusing on those who do want the whole truth exposed, thus deflecting attention away from the real issues.

Glenn Spencer