Tuesday, 13 December 2011

Jacquie Lawson does it again....a humorous Advent-into-Christmas look at things.

This is a little something for the season.   If your latest adobe flash player is not installed it might not reproduce correctly, but if it's up to date, then you can have a pleasant couple of minutes.
El Gringo Viejo


Posted by at

Monday, 12 December 2011

But What If .... ? Dealing with the Whatifee Monster

     A non-OROG communicated with us a bit ago, wanting to know about the famous Seguro Popular in Mexico.   The SP adjuncts the Instituto Mexicano de Seguro Social (IMSS) and extends pre-paid medical services to that half of the Mexican population not covered by the IMSS.    It is ridiculously cheap....of course it is heavily subsidised by the central Mexican government treasury....but it does charge the participant a paltry amount for a fairly significant suite of services.   It is also a governmental iniciative w/private underwriting,  voluntary participation type program.
     The pinko-United Nations-Global Warming crowd is quick to point out that Mexico only has 50% of its population covered by the IMSS and IMSSST(socialized medicine w/ private funding overtones).   The former IM covers participating private industry and business and the second IM covers the public sector workers.
     This leaves it to the independent observer to conclude that the rest of the people are slumped over a cactus somewhere, having died of some aggressive form of ringworm due to a lack of medical intervention.   One-half of the entire Mexican population has the IM membership and C+ to A- services throughout Mexico.   Another  15% or so  have a private insurance policy with major  medical coverage.    Another 2% is so wealthy that they could probably build a hospital in order to have a doctor give them an aspirin for a headache to occur in the future.  Another batch is in the middle and upper-middle class with enough resources to use private hospital and medical/dental services that are about 1/10 to 1/3 the cost of American services on a cash pay basis.   Then there are 15% who have never heard of  Thigh Masters, Lady Gaga, iPods or anything else that's important.
The question has been asked various times, but apparently there is increasing interest again, so El Gringo Viejo will try to condense an answer for all times and for all seasons.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Can Gringos participate in the Seguro Popular program in Mexico?
     Yes, foreign nationals need only to enroll as would any Mexican. The foreign national will normally…esstentially always….pay the top bracket charge, which still borders upon extremely cheap to almost laughable.   If a retired couple, living in Mexico, were to sign up this year, it would cost about 2,200 pesos. That come up to about 193.00 American dollars…for the year.
    Be certain, however, that this does not include the worst cancers, dialysis, and other grotesque, extremely costly continuing-care type services. It is primarily aimed at poison-ivy, snake-bites, pneumonia, serious flu, common fractures, and the like. Much mild to moderate medical stuff is covered, so review your pamphlet carefully. It is in Spanish, but it is easily understandable, if you take your time. Ask a Mexican friend or whatever Gringo you normally meet up with at the cantina who has lived in Mexico longer than you have. The people at the sign-up place will be very patient (pun?) with you if there is not a long line waiting….and they have never misdirected us or anyone we know.
      The prescriptions covered are many, but generally do not interest curmudgeons who would rather gripe and grumble about having green toenails and elbows that hurt and don’t bend, en lieu of taking medicine. In either case, whether a grumpy hypochondriac or a nervous-nelly the pill-popper, there are quite a few reliable Mexican produced pharmaceuticals for a wide range of real and imagined disorders, and those medicines are readily available about 94% of the time.   These drugs and medicines are covered under the Seguro Popular.  
          The gringo client has another peculiar issue.   Let us follow him to the appropriate clinic, where we find him just coming through the door.   He is coughing up a cup of yellow snot from his upper lungs, and running a 101.6 temperature. He has come to his Social Security Hospital….usually a Triple AAA minor league situation…(yours will be a little higher or a little lower). The waiting area looks like Central Casting for a Cecil B. DeMille’s next production of Cleopaetra Meets Ben Hur. You go up to the desk that says “registro” or “entradas” and humourless, grumpy automotron nurse-receptionists take down your information and scan your Seguro Popular ID card. While the rest of the masses wait for their casting call, after about 7 minutes you will be called in for attention….leaving behind about 300,000 squalling babies, women in labour, four skeletons slumped over a desk and left over from last week, and one catatonic old man who told you he was worried because he had no pulse-rate.
      So….in other words…it’s crowded and noisy, sometimes…That it works at all is amazing…but since you are probably some kind of a geezer and a foreigner…you and not they….the citizens….will probably be called ahead of the rest.
     It would probably be a good idea, if your intent is to live forever, and use a lot of adult diapers, be fed through a tube to your stomach, have four IVs in various apendages, be stuperous and comatose for 4 to 6 months, and confuse Doris Day with a  green flamingo, to have your American insurance in force with a Mexico major medical rider. There are also reliable Mexican private insurance policies, with major medical.   It would be good to review them carefully, as you would with an American policy.
    If you just want to die happy, loaded up with gentle doses of pharmaceutical morphine, and/or other pain-abating, legal, liquid things….then the Seguro Popular is good enough.   It is fairly simple to have caring, working-class people with considerable "bed-side battlefield experience", to look after a person during his final days, weeks, or months....at his own home environment.    The only problem is the service is about the same in terms of quality but it costs a lot less.
    This is a short form of the answer.   It is certain that there are anecdotal accounts that would say that the Gringo Viejo is being too soft or too hard on the Mexican effort to extend prepaid insurance for medical service to the impoverished, the hypochondriacs, and the people with American/Canadian/British sensibility.


Thanks, as always for your time and interest.   Remember all comments and questions are dealt with as quickly as we run across them, and it doesn't cost a thing!
The Old Gringo
Posted by at

Friday, 9 December 2011

Quick Class

Time to re-order thinking.   It is long overdue.
       The Gringo Viejo has not always felt this way.   He incorrectly followed the admirers of Hoover for a while; after all he and Roosevelt opposed one another.    But the heroes of the twenties were Harding and Coolidge.    Harding...a Republican with women problems true, but he saved the USA from Wilson's nutty notions and promulgated legislation that pulled us out of the  Depression of 1920 - 1921....and died early.    He gave us his Vice-President, Calvin Coolidge who may be one of the greatest Presidents, that is why the intellectuals have to make fun of him.   Then we had Herbert Clark  Hoover, a committed  Republican "progressive", devoted to government intervention and massive deficit spending which caused the market crash to turn into a Depression by throwing money at the problem.    It didn't work to solve the Crash or anything else.   Roosevelt ran as a budget balancing Conservative Democrat....then morphed into a hydrophobic socialist upon inauguration.    His leftist policies mired America into an almost permanent Great Depression.

Calvin Coolidge
Warren Harding














Happy viewing on this very brief history and economics lesson.....3 minutes.
Thanks for your time and trouble.   We have rain here on the frontier finally. 
El Gringo Viejo  
Posted by at

Two of My Favourite People

 Fred and Barney let the Gringo Viejo down a little when they issued a statement approving
the President's speech in Kansas...Texas...no, Kansas a couple of days ago.   According to the
Statement, ..." We are in agreement with Obama.   We don't need any ATMs, communications
technology, computers, or any of that gadget stuff.  We like envionmentally friendly autos,
and fertilizer-producing Eviro-blend Aircraft.   Everything we have is solar powered or not.
   Luddites rule!"
     We have gone over and over the speech given by Barak Obama in Kansas the other day.   The vision Barak Obama shows once again that he does not know anything about social demographics, less about comparative economic data involving other nations and parts of the Planet Earth, and that lack of such knowledge does not bother him in the least.
     OROGs know that the Gringo Viejo knew from the beginning that the intent and objective of this individual was to create a war between black people plus others within the broad grouping of "The Oppressed"  against the middle class and the upper economic ranges of American society.
     For a man with no father....for a man without a country....he is certanly guided by the chromozomes and genetic imprint of his biological father.   His father was a drug addict, alcoholic, mysogenist, communist, and anti-colonialist.   His father considered Winston Churchill to be evil and Joseph Robert Stalin to be good.    Like his father, Obama sees a world finally berid of Jews to be a better place.
      Obama's grandparents were "typical white" communists who loved to live in luxury in Hawai'i, while they instructed everyone else that it would be better for them to live on collective farms and make hams and jams for the commissars.   The new social order would necessarily be led by people qualified in the finer points of social democracy, the application of violence and threat of violence, the application of anarchy and threats of anarchy, principally against the upper middle class of any society.

     His mother, like his father, used copius amounts of drugs and alcohol.   She was also afflicted with mental and emotional disorders, perhaps induced by her various addictions.


The fact that Barak Obama does not reveal his medical records, nor does he reveal his academic records speaks volumes.    The fact that he tried to cover up his association with known communists and violent felons underscores the fact that he was and is a form of Manchurian Candidate, no matter how much some people would like to dismiss such "ridiculous" assertions.







Like Billy Jeff Blythe taking Roman Catholic communion, (was it in Kenya?) the other most intelligent, well-rounded, and knowledgeable person in the history of the Earth, dwarfing Solomon by 3 trillion gbytes, the Jew-hating, Judaism-hating president gloats about "good partying" (good party means pot-smoking, of course, just like 'Tea-bagger' had an incredibly pornographic, degrading, and course meaning among the 'elite') by essentially mis-using (desecrating?) an article (type of candelabra) used in commemoration of the Miracle of Chanukah.   What an ignorant slug.

     When one actually reads a few pages of his supposed writings, such as the book written by (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.aspindid=2169) Bill  Ayers, under Obama's name, it becomes clear that Barak Obama has never had any thought beyond the intent and objective to make trouble for people he styled as "them that's got".    Although he had "always had", he had been taught that "them that's got" are bad people who made their "gettins'' by luck, graft, and exploitation.   Urban colonialism, subjection, discrimination, and other dastardly systems were put in place to keep black people and other oppressed and exploited people down.    He was taught to decry materialism....to love Diego Rivera's murals depicting the decadence of the life-styles of the rich and famous....but to enjoy the same trappings of wealth, since, after all, he thought of himself as one of the higher commissars.    After all, he was like Jesus....because he was a "community organiser" too.
     Hate Jews, spread the wealth, demonize people who actually solved problems associated with poverty as being the ones who caused poverty.   Take over universities and preach class warfare incessantly to newly arriving "students" who could never begin to pass the 8th grade graduate record exam used by many States before the year 1900.

Luddites sabotaging weaving machines.
Instead of "Back to the Future", they were
committed to "Forward to the Past".

     One of the great and main differences is that socialists want to control everyone's lives and assign people their tasks and benefits, finally reducing the entire population to a level one onion skin's breadth away from misery.....with, of course, one teensey-weensey little exception.    The elite, who know what is best for the rest, are allowed their dachas and little luxuries like running water, guns, autos with chauffeurs, food, 300 year old brandy, etc.   They are also allowed to kill anyone who doesn't understand that it is best to do what is best for the rest.     The conservatives, on the other hand, wish that all should prosper by their own hand, without interference from their "betters".   This would do away with the need for excessive government-based charity, which always is used to buy votes with the money of the productive and to cause dependency and sloth among the recipients.
     Put simply Barak, marxists, many large business organisations, almost all Democrats want to enslave people to dependency upon the government to provide un-deserved food, housing, and other benefits.   They can maintain these people with money confiscated by force from the productive.   They provide first for themselves to have luxury, and then to government workers, so that they have comfort for doing little.  The rest...the little people....live just the breadth of the skin of an onion above the level of misery.   Welcome to Cuba.... 
     Some Republicans, all intellectual conservatives, almost all libertarians, and most traditionalist Christians and Jews want everyone to rise up and be independent, self reliant, and prosperous unto their own account.   They want a world where each gives according to his will and to the cause of his choice.  Welcome to what little is left.....Texas, Singapore,
      Self interest is not "greed".   Selfishness is a form of greed, not self-interest.   The Nazarene preached that one should love his neighbour as himself, meaning, of course, that a person had to have some sense of self-value and a sense of responsibility to ones people and possessions.  It is difficult to be generous if one has not produced from the wealth he was given by Providence.
Pray for the State of the Republic.
El Gringo Viejo


Posted by at

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Pretty Faces? Yes and no

     Enrique Pena Nieto, de Partido Revolucionario Democratico candidate for the Mexican Presidency in next year's July election, and also the newlywed husband of some silly soap opera star has had a substantial inauspicious start to his "slam-dunk" electoral victory.   He is managing to garner headlines such as these, "Can Mexican presidential candidate avoid 'Rick Perry' slump after books fumble?"

     In the case of Rick Perry, the Gringo Viejo has some considerable experience having to suffer through Rick's convoluted, drawn-out, of ten pointless dronings.   It is fairly obvious that the guy is intelligent....like a Caterpillar D-9....and one underestimates the Governor's intellect at one's own peril.   But he cannot speak well before a group, large or small, and he does not think quickly.
Enrique Pena Nieto
Candidate for the Presidency of Mexico
Partido Revolucionario Institucional
     Enrique Pena, on the other hand, is just kind of intellectually "otherwise capacitated" as they say now in the politically correct world of urbane Mexico.   Over here, he would be known as a 'dumbo'. He has had repeated lapses of memory, and several Obamaesque episodes of responding to a question with a fifteen to twenty minute rambling assembly of phrases that frequently wind up not having anything to do with the question or the topic at hand. Most recently he declared that he likes to read books, sometimes novels but could not name any. Later he recalled some titles but paired them to the incorrect authors.   He also said that he read the Bible, and had been inspired and guided by it....ending with the brilliant "....I have even read a little of it." Not cool, even with a Bimbo ....(denigrating term for public woman deleted)...who seems to always be vying for the position once held by the ....(denigrating term for a public woman deleted)....Sasha Montenegro, the mistress, and later wife, of the ....(denigrating term for a disgusting, corrupt slug)....Jose Lopez Portillo, President of Mexico 1976 -1982.
     Obama has the advantage of a lapdog, elitist press to cover for his repetitive, mendacious, demagogue-like monologues that seem to pass for speeches.   They certainly sweep his "...all 57 States in the Nation..."   slip-ups under the camel's hair rug.    But Enrique does not have that luxury.   The press in Mexico has been increasingly independent and vigourous in political matters.   They try to avoid covering the cartel issues so much, although there are those who do and do it well.    But many prefer to cut their risks of offending people who are prone to violent, unpredictable reactions and concentrate on politics and other newsworthy matters.
     Plus, while the very handsome dunce  really was Governor of the State of Mexico, adjacent to the Federal District, not all the electorate is totally convinced that he is anything more than a pretty face.   His wife is not known for much beyond being known....in a manner of speaking.
The nation is also being presented with the candidacy of a very sharp, tooth and nail scrapper, who has considerable private business and public sector experience.   She is reasonably attractive, very well spoken, and conservative....and almost certain to be nominated next month in the Partido de Accion Nacional's national nomination convention.   She also has an excellent social resume'.
Josefina Vazquez Mota
Candidata a la Presidencia de Mexico
Partido de Accion Nacional
     Josefina is well-spoken, deeply intellectual, charismatic, and conservative philosophically.
There are many, many females who are voting for the first or second time from the middle class....and there are many, many working-class females who have a long history of electoral participation,  who are tending towards this woman.   Frequently, during campaign stops, she is thronged by these types.   Also well represented in her posse is the standard PAN stalwarts, along with younger males, small business blue collar types as well as the white-collar managerial types.
      So....since the left has chosen an essentially deranged fool, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who managed to squander a 53 - 30 - 17 lead four months away from the Presidential elections 6 years ago......we find ourselves in a horserace.    Enrique's poll numbers have already begun to wobble....from "sure bet" to re-instate the PRI to a good, solid  "perhaps".

     As an aside, the Old Gringo cannot understand why the leftist PRD did not nominate the mayor of Mexico City....a solid pinko, but one who has done a defendible job as CEO of the biggest City in the World.   But, the younger man deferred to the older, and barring some kind of intervention by fate,  the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica may find itself shopping for some kind of appropriate historical dust-bin quite soon. 

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador
Candidato a la Presidencia de Mexico
Partido de la Revolucion Democratica
The issues will be interesting to watch as they unfold.    As you all are aware, were the Gringo Viejo a Mexican with a dog in this hunt coming up, he would support unequivocally the girl.
El Gringo Viejo
Posted by at

The Difference is...

One difference might be that the conservative, regular, normal dolt asks, "What is best for the country?"    The Occupy Free Portapotty Crowd asks, "Who's going to pay my debts?  Who's going to give me a high paying job? Who's gonna give me what I want? Now!"

PLEASE BEAR WITH EL GRINGO VIEJO WHEN YOU HAVE A MOMENT.   READING THIS FOLLOWING  SCREED SHOULD BE REQUIRED OF ALL TRADITIONALISTS AND INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATIVES.    We are certainly in a war for the preservation of this Republic.  

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption


Diane Alden
Jan. 7, 2003


Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor, Dorothy Day, Alinsky's real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment '60s radicals and revolutionaries.
Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for '60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.
Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: "Reveille for Radicals" (1946) and "Rules for Radicals" (1971).
"Rules for Radicals" begins with an unusual tribute: "From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."
The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.
Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: "My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it." This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes."
Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: "Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is. ... Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority."
But that didn't stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in "life's lottery."
Alinsky's radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.
Transition and Transaction
The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky's tactics seem foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conservative agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky tactics.
In that cause, radicals and the liberal-left gravitated toward the print and electronic media, toward the university professorate and the law. The left, consciously or unconsciously, adopted Alinsky's rules. The impact changed the nature of the Democratic Party and the direction of the United States. Increasingly, the left is succeeding in changing the nature of the Republican Party as well.
Suffice to say the greatest change has taken place in the relationship between the state and the individual. America is rapidly descending from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by elites of one sort or another.
Alinsky's influence on the modern Democratic Party indicates that the ends do indeed justify the means. As Alinsky states in "Rules for Radicals" it was foolish to believe that means are just as important as the ends. He states that "to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles ... the practical revolutionary will understand ... [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind."
Sadly, not enough Republicans and conservatives learned Alinsky's rules until late in the game. A sign of hope is the fact that the new media, including talk radio and the Internet, are changing all that. One can hope it is not too late.
In any event, Alinsky's rules include:
  • "Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."
  • "Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
  • "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
  • "The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."
  • "In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
  • "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)
  • "One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying "nigger" on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)
  • "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists. Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say "yes sir," and hope the accusations and name calling will go away. Why is it that Republicans consistently fail to point out the monumental failures of the new Democrats? Failures such as the massive disaster that is the "war on poverty." On that topic alone Republicans should be drilling the public in every media venue and at every opportunity. Then and only then should Republicans offer alternatives to the failed policies of the Democratic left.
Republicans should pound relentlessly on the fact that the Democratic Party was hijacked by leftist reactionaries way back in the early '70s. The reactionary left is the obstructionist left. They do nothing but defend and cling to the failures of the past. That fact makes them reactionaries rather than radicals or progressives.
Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible. That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.
In fact, in the 2000 election Al Gore maintained the Constitution could and should be manipulated because it was "flexible." Whatever happened to the amendment process?
Bill Clinton used executive orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution. He used the agencies of the federal government against his enemies. Clinton set an extremely dangerous precedent. Alinsky would have loved it. It is a perfect example of the use of the Rules for Radicals – ends justify the means.
Hillary and Bill Clinton and other powerful former '60s radicals learned from Saul Alinsky. It is about time that a few more Republicans and/or conservatives did as well.
Alinsky in South Dakota
Remember that Alinsky's advice was that the ends justify the means. Think of Florida in 2000 and the manipulation of military ballots. Think of Milwaukee and unattended polling places, which allowed leftist college students to take handfuls of ballots to check off. Think of a million immigrants in the 1996 election granted instant voting rights by the Clinton administration.
More importantly, think of South Dakota in November of 2002, or Nevada in 1998 or 2002.
In a brilliant bit of investigative reporting, National Review's Byron York gave us a grand overview of the corrupt and unpleasant outline of how Alinsky's rules work during election season. Republicans, once again asleep at the switch, live in the land of euphoria. They still believe that their Democratic counterparts are among the angels on God's right.
Considering that Alinsky expresses admiration for Lucifer, they are looking in the wrong place to find many modern Democrats. Republicans still assume that the modern Democratic Party, its media sycophants, its operatives during national or state elections, will play fair. It is hard to say which is worse, Republican naïveté' or Democratic cheating and law breaking.
When Democrats cheat, especially under Bill Clinton's and Terry McAuliffe's watch, they whine when they discover they didn't cheat enough to win. When they are caught in the big lies, they expect Republicans to ignore it and give them a pass. The last election in South Dakota is a case in point.
In the primaries and election of 2002, lawyers from Washington started showing up at polling places in the hinterlands of South Dakota. The Republican leadership and the establishment should have seen it coming but they didn't.
As Byron York relates in "Badlands, Bad Votes": "On Election Day, Noma Sazama knew something unusual was going on the moment she arrived at her polling place, the St. Thomas Parish Hall in Mission, South Dakota. Sazama, a member of the local election board, noticed several strangers in the room – an unusual sight in Mission, population 904, where most people know one another. It turned out the strangers were all lawyers, Democrats who had come to town to serve as poll watchers for the race between incumbent Democratic senator Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune. One was from Washington, D.C., another was from New York City, and a third was from California. 'There were no locals, and I've never seen that happen before,' says Sazama, who has lived in the area for 73 years."
Furthermore, York maintains, "The Democratic team of lawyers confiscated the Parish Hall kitchen only a few feet from the balloting tables."
Witnesses swore in affidavits that party hacks had rented dozens of vans and hired drivers to bring voters to the polls. Lawyers from elsewhere made the Parish Hall their headquarters. Seventy-three-year-old Ms. Sazama stated, "They had the names and time-of-pickup and whether someone voted on them, and from those he would contact the drivers."
Finally she understood that the influx of outside Democrats were going to use the polling place as their headquarters, an action which is against the laws of South Dakota.
The lawyers tied up the phones, which meant that the poll watchers and election officials could not make needed phone calls. York quotes the election supervisor: "They were on the phone using it to call I don't know where, and I needed to call because we had some new districting. They were always talking on it."
When Wanless, the election supervisor, protested, she got a chilly reaction from the out-of-towners. "I felt like they were trying to intimidate me," she recalls.
In fact, all this is against South Dakota law, which states: "No person may, in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a polling place, maintain an office or communications center. ..."
There were no Republican lawyers or authorities around to inform election officials that it was against the law for the Democrats to be running their campaign from a polling place. That was bad enough, but ever since November Republicans have failed dismally to make it a BIG national issue.
There was also complete failure to understand Alinsky's second basic rule: "Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat." The DNC counted on the locals being intimidated by a gang of high-priced lawyers – and of course they were.
Another Alinsky rule used in the November elections in South Dakota: "In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt." In other words, what you do is count on the failure of will by your opponent to call a foul. The opponent usually believes it is easier to do nothing, it is always easier to do nothing, and so Republicans "move on."
That is the kind of apathy Hitler's forces counted on in the Weimar Republic. The end-justifies-the-means cabal figures that even good people find it easier to do nothing.
In South Dakota, lawyers from diverse places were part of a brigade that the DNC uses to "ensure voters' rights are protected." But as York relates, "According to the testimony of dozens of South Dakotans who worked at the polls, the out-of-state attorneys engaged in illegal electioneering, pressured poll workers to accept questionable ballots, and forced polling places in a heavily Democratic area to stay open for an hour past their previously-announced closing time. In addition, the testimony contains evidence of people being allowed to vote with little or no identification, of incorrectly marked ballots being counted as Democratic votes, of absentee ballots being counted without proper signatures, and, most serious of all, of voters who were paid to cast their ballots for Sen. Johnson."
According to some witnesses, Democrats were also running car pools out of polling places on the Indian reservations, where investigators are discovering that the dead Indian vote had a major impact on the slim, last- minute, 524-vote Tim Johnson victory over John Thune.
Affidavits from South Dakotans also indicate that money probably changed hands in crucial areas in the boonies. It was not gas money for van drivers either, but paying per head per vote – shades of Tammany Hall and the elections in Boston wards. Nonetheless, Republicans have decided to "move on."
To get the entire story, including affidavits sworn to by South Dakota residents, read York's November article in National Review Online.
Alinsky Does Nevada
When I worked at Nevada Policy Institute in Nevada several years ago, the Post-election analysis of the 1998 election uncovered the fact that family pets received absentee ballots in crucial districts. Dead people were counted as well.
Democratic Senator Harry Reid's slim, 428-vote win against Republican John Ensign raised eyebrows and the juices of some who understand how the modern DNC and its phalanx of wheelers and dealers, lawyers and opportunists really work.
A part of the tactic includes breaking the law when you can and where you can get away with it. Remember, in the minds of the hijacked Democratic Party the ends do indeed justify the Luciferian means.
In Nevada on Dec. 24, 2002, the FBI seized ballots cast in primary and general elections. Said Daron Borst, FBI special agent in Las Vegas, "There is an ongoing investigation into election fraud, but I can't go into any details due to the nature of the investigation."
Ballots were taken after a complaint was lodged that 85 voters in tiny Eureka county did not live in that county or were long dead. The Eureka County probe marked the second time this year the FBI has become involved in a county election in Nevada.
As in South Dakota, it is much easier to get away with election fraud where people don't know the law or will not enforce the law or they are intimidated by the chutzpah and law breaking of crooks in Armani suits holding credentials from the Democratic National Committee.
Unfortunately, when Republicans don't pay attention to the corruption and allow themselves to get screwed time and again, they are also in league with the devil. By this failure of will, the sins of omission are as evil as sins of commission.
Voting fraud was rampant in 2000 and again in 2002 and it will be more so in 2004. Why aren't Republican lawmakers and the RNC making sure this does not happen again? In 2002, Terry McAuliffe told the world that Democratic lawyers would be out in the states keeping an eye on things. They did more than that and it was against the law.
The failure of Republicans to impose the rule of law on the cheaters, liars and manipulators allows those who use Alinsky's corrupt system to win. That fact tells us that the voting process means as little to our elites as does the Constitution.
Because of that fact, Republicans will lose future elections. More importantly, the people of the United States will lose.
The RNC and the GOP leadership just don't get it. Otherwise they would care enough to do something about it.
Diane Alden is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with degrees in political science, economics and history. Dubbed the "prairie pontificator," she also has grad work in international economics and international political movements, plus extensive work in the psychology of behavior in disordered children, women's issues in Third World countries, creative writing, and marketing. With a sideline in American Indian studies and independence and secession movements worldwide, she is also working on upcoming changes in Canadian politics and the flux in the political landscape of North America.
See her full bio
TYSK Note: Learn more about the Alinsky Method, the Delphi Technique and "facilitators". If you work for a major corporation or a school district, you are sure to have come face-to-face with this method of group manipulation or, group mind control under the guise of using the "team" approach to problem solving. Click on this link for a short overview article. Once enlightened you are sure to want to know more. Do a Google search on either the Alinsky Method or the Delphi Technique. You will not only learn of its insidiousness, but also see how many groups proudly claim to use these methods to obtain results!

Reproduced with the permission of NewsMax.com. All rights reserved.

BACK Articles

Search TYSK

      
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)