Friday, 21 October 2016
Remarkable Legacy......very remarkable.
__________________
REMARKABLE LEGACY....VERY REMARKABLE
REMARKABLE LEGACY....VERY REMARKABLE
_______________
The charts alone are enough to convince any non-lobotomized person that Lucifer's work in what looks to be a vineyard has born fruit. The surprise will be when the dolts learn that the wine produced by the fruit is actually hemlock brandy.
Once again, attribution goes to the Anglican Curmudgeon for having fished this fine piece of analysis out for the hurried horde of producers who still cling to their guns and bibles and sanity....if only by a string.
El Gringo Viejo
El Gringo Viejo
_______________
Tuesday, 18 October 2016
Mount from the left, milk from the right.....
_____________________
The olde carcass just refuses to rebound as it once did. We put off trying to formulate any reasonable and/or profound observations because there simply was not enough firewood available to even kindle a small fire in the old iron stove. Five or six relatively minor invasions of the metabolism have lent to the problem. Our fight against them continues to go well.
There are a few points concerning the reportage from the Left and the Right concerning the passage of people from points South of Mexico to the frontier of the United States. These stories speak to various happenings, policies, and assumed facts that are all inaccurate to a fault. Some of the stories are purposefully inaccurate. Included among these stories are others currently being bandied about that are related to the inundation of "migrants" and "refugees" but not in a direct way.
(1) Sociologically, the people who are hoarding into the United States during these times with the aid of generally leftist "religious" groups, and blatantly anti-American politicians, and the Obsolete Press as well as most of the international press, are not "Migrants". They are, in fact, either refugees, or displaced persons, or in many cases, invaders.
Some of the invader group has a psuedo-religious mission, in that it is composed of people who are being shepherded into the United States by leftist, liberation theology practitioners whose mission it is to overload the public assistance programmes to the point that they finally break the American exchequer. Pastors for Peace, much of the Catholic Charities operation here along the southernmost part of the Republic of Texas, and various other previously respected charitable groups are involved in this mission to introduce millions of people into the country who will begin their indentured servitude instantly by becoming literally injected into the public assistance industry. We shall have an Anchor Baby Boom in the coming years that might well dwarf the post-World War II, plain old regular Baby Boom period.
Sister So-and-So who runs the Catholic Charities operation at the Sacred Heart Church in downtown McAllen bemoans the fact that "....there are so many, and they need so much". She says that right now (this date) there are 200 - 300 women and children coming in every day, and they need disposable diapers, clothes, spending money, a place to wash up and change now that they have their temporary permit to stay in the United States as refugees. All are going north, almost without delay to glob onto the growing neighborhoods and barrios of incredibly violent Salvadorian, Honduran, and Guatemalan "communities" that are found in most major cities of the United States at this time.
All these women head north after receiving their permit that allows for them to stay in the United States to await their court hearing date to determine their eligibility to stay as ''refugees". Over 80 per cent either never receive that notice due to the fact they gave a false address or other locational information, or because they simply disregard the order to appear if they do receive the order.
It is all a loosely, but carefully, co-ordinated plan that the intellectual social engineers who are intent upon destroying America as a common law, natural law, free-enterprise nation have now placed in full function. In other words, the engine of destruction is hitting on all twelve cylinders. Those coming in are not "migrants". They are, essentially, sociological termite saboteurs.
(2) (a) The OROGs (Order of the Readers of the Old Gringo) may have seen a long-distance picture of a partition wall of considerable strength and height extending for miles, obviously dividing place number one from place number two. Underneath the photo, it states, ''If Mexico can build this wall between it and Guatemala, why can't we build one here?"
To respond quickly and accurately, that fence is not on the Guatemala - Mexico border. It divides Israel from the lunatic jihadi Hamas and Hezbollah murderers in "Palestine". There is no fencing on the Mexico - Guatemala border save for a few stretches of mediocre to excellent ranch fencing that demarcates property lines mainly.
The exception might be at the very few official crossing points, there is some fencing near the immigration and processing entry points.
(b) The same people who publish that picture, and those who forward it on Facebook, etc. also will intone that, ".....and on the Mexican border, the Mexican Army patrols along there and they just shoot the ones trying to come in illegally." Suffice to say, such is not the case, at least in 99.99999993% of the cases of anyone crossing in with or without papers.
There are tales we could tell concerning other distant times, but 80 and 100 years dim the lustre of those images, and many of those tales did not build their houses upon a rock.
(3) This matter about "The 43 Missing Children of Ayotzinapa" remains a cause-celebre among those on the Left literally all over the Planet. If anyone sees the articles, please understand that they were not children, nor students, nor are they alive. They were all killed in a fight to the death struggle between Bolshies and Trotskies. It was a fight brought on the by the woman who was going to run for Governor of Guerrero and her husband (the presidente of the city/county of Iguala, Guerrero) against the admittedly communist leaders of the false "teachers' college" of Ayotzinapa. All the aforementioned were involved in the drug transportation and trade, all were involved in sabotaging legitimate businesses that did not pay "war taxes" to their movements, and all were committed to anarchy as a quick resort in order to ply their will in the locale. The man and wife were of the Trotsky-like group and the rest are out-and-out Bolshies.
The woman in question, who is in prison now as is her hubby, had two of her brothers killed in a shoot-out about sixty miles away from area above-mentioned. The shootout was between competing drug transporters and was provoked by their territorial contentions.
(4) Finally, it would to well to tell everyone that we have actually had an up-tick at the Quinta over the past several months and weeks at the Quinta. Much of the reason is due to the increasing recognition in our extended area that a reasonable and deepening calm is steadily re-establishing itself to the extent necessary to impulse the actual milling around people used to do before.
By "before", we mean before that time that the previous three governors tried to limit military "presence" in the State of Tamaulipas. Many folks might be unaware that Governors of States in Mexico are in most ways subordinate to the Central Government, but they do have wide discretion in terms of accepting or dispersing regular Army or Naval Infantry deployments. There are exceptions but in the main, it is a rule that is very gummy, sticky, and politically tricky.
Our new Governor, Francisco Javier Garcia Cabeza de Vaca, a conservative and PAN party member (Republican-equivalent), has made certain that "more is better" and that Tamaulipas is "military friendly". That is a policy widely, very widely endorsed in every corner of the State.
More later.
El Gringo Viejo
More later.
El Gringo Viejo
_____________________
Saturday, 15 October 2016
An Accurate and Cunning Observation of the American Political Theatre
Dialogue of the Self in Modern Times
Article produced and published by the Anglican Curmudgeon,
A. S. Haley (click on the "Dialogue" title just above.....etc. link to go directly to his site.)
Q. Is Donald Trump crude, and coarse, and pompous?
A. Indubitably.
Q. But we knew that about him already, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So what is “new” in regard to a tape of his crude and coarse
remarks made in 2005?
A. Nothing.
Q. So how can the left [sc. the Democrats and their camp-followers]
claim this development as “news”?
A. They can’t. But that doesn’t stop them from doing it anyway, since
they see a political advantage.
Q. And just what is the political advantage they see?
A. That they can trumpet [pun intended] how crude, and coarse,
and pompous Mr. Trump is.
Q. Wait — we already knew that, right? [See first question.]
A. Right. Just as we already knew that former President Clinton used
his position to exploit women, and on occasion to assault, batter and
even rape them -- with no fear of reprisal.
Q. So what possible advantage can they gain from raising as “new"
something that everyone already knew, and that is hypocritical of
them, to boot?
A. Ah, now you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter.
Q. I have?
A. Yes. The God of PC [Political Correctness] demands from His
devotees incessant sacrifices of the same thing over and over again.
Thus the left can once more (ad nauseam) profess and show how
much they adore their God of PC: they kneel and prostrate themselves
before His altar, but are careful to offer only their political opponents
(and never one of their own) for sacrifice. Those on the right, on the
other hand, are left [pun intended] — with a quandary.
Q. What quandary?
A. They don’t relish worshiping the God of PC — but they will, and
will sacrifice even their own chosen candidate if that’s what it takes to
get themselves re-elected. And that’s why so many of the right have
chosen this particular moment to abandon their previous
[albeit lukewarm] support of Mr. Trump.
Q. And just where does that leave Mr. Trump?
A. Just where you now find him: gazing in the pool, admiring his
own reflection, and not caring a fig for what anyone else may
think -- all the while that his erstwhile “supporters” desert
him in droves.
Q. That’s not a very pretty picture.
A. It’s not. But politics is never pretty. If you wanted Mother Teresa
for a candidate, you could never have gotten her, because half
(or more) of the electorate would have rejected her just for what she stood for,
namely the welfare of everyone else but herself. The majority of this
motivated to go to the polls today ask only: "What will this (or that)
candidate do for me?"
Q. Well, even if that's so, what's wrong with that? Shouldn't
they vote based on which candidate can deliver the most for them?
A. That approach renders them incapable of placing themselves in
anyone’s shoes but their own. Consequently they end up with
candidates whose vision likewise cannot extend beyond their
own selves, e.g., Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In short,
they get just those whom they have asked for, and whom they
certainly deserve.
A. Indubitably.
Q. But we knew that about him already, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So what is “new” in regard to a tape of his crude and coarse
remarks made in 2005?
A. Nothing.
Q. So how can the left [sc. the Democrats and their camp-followers]
claim this development as “news”?
A. They can’t. But that doesn’t stop them from doing it anyway, since
they see a political advantage.
Q. And just what is the political advantage they see?
A. That they can trumpet [pun intended] how crude, and coarse,
and pompous Mr. Trump is.
Q. Wait — we already knew that, right? [See first question.]
A. Right. Just as we already knew that former President Clinton used
his position to exploit women, and on occasion to assault, batter and
even rape them -- with no fear of reprisal.
Q. So what possible advantage can they gain from raising as “new"
something that everyone already knew, and that is hypocritical of
them, to boot?
A. Ah, now you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter.
Q. I have?
A. Yes. The God of PC [Political Correctness] demands from His
devotees incessant sacrifices of the same thing over and over again.
Thus the left can once more (ad nauseam) profess and show how
much they adore their God of PC: they kneel and prostrate themselves
before His altar, but are careful to offer only their political opponents
(and never one of their own) for sacrifice. Those on the right, on the
other hand, are left [pun intended] — with a quandary.
Q. What quandary?
A. They don’t relish worshiping the God of PC — but they will, and
will sacrifice even their own chosen candidate if that’s what it takes to
get themselves re-elected. And that’s why so many of the right have
chosen this particular moment to abandon their previous
[albeit lukewarm] support of Mr. Trump.
Q. And just where does that leave Mr. Trump?
A. Just where you now find him: gazing in the pool, admiring his
own reflection, and not caring a fig for what anyone else may
think -- all the while that his erstwhile “supporters” desert
him in droves.
Q. That’s not a very pretty picture.
A. It’s not. But politics is never pretty. If you wanted Mother Teresa
for a candidate, you could never have gotten her, because half
(or more) of the electorate would have rejected her just for what she stood for,
namely the welfare of everyone else but herself. The majority of this
motivated to go to the polls today ask only: "What will this (or that)
candidate do for me?"
Q. Well, even if that's so, what's wrong with that? Shouldn't
they vote based on which candidate can deliver the most for them?
A. That approach renders them incapable of placing themselves in
anyone’s shoes but their own. Consequently they end up with
candidates whose vision likewise cannot extend beyond their
own selves, e.g., Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In short,
they get just those whom they have asked for, and whom they
certainly deserve.
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Where Glen Beck leaves the rails and crashes.....
____________________
Glen Beck is, by any measure, a loose and rolling cannon. Perhaps he and his would consider such a declaration to be a complement. But we on the outside of the asylum are left with a view of a six-street intersection blocked by a collision involving vehicles driven by Beck and his crew, the Marx Brothers, Amos and Andy, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, and Curly, Larry, and Moe.
The recent interview by Glen Beck of Senator Ted Cruz left about a third of what is left of Beck's morning radio audience stunned into disbelief. To be brief, Beck essentially threw Cruz into the trash bin due to Cruz's tepid declaration that he would vote of Trump. Several million, arch-conservative, hard-right incurable Conservatives had arrived at that point, especially during the past 96 hours.
Most of us who listen to Beck do so because he and his posse have humourous (yes, Virginia, it is okay for Brits to spell humourous thusly, just for the pointless point of trying to preserve a bit of useless, inefficient antiquity) satiracle episodes, usually making fun of people who desperately need to be ridiculed.
Senator Cruz explained correctly that reality had presented a binary circumstance. To be quick, it essentially boils down to a variation of the "lesser of two evils" argument or position. In this case, however, there is a decent cherry atop the parfait. The parfait we are being served is not as pretty or pleasant as the one pictured here, but it does have a cherry on top. That cherry is not an illusion, nor is it a consolation prize. It is something remarkably valuable.
At the risk of offending Mr. Beck, who spoke in blasphemous and horridly profane terms on live national radio this past Monday concerning Sen. Cruz's explanation for voting for Trump, the episode revealed that Mr. Beck also thinks incoherently and hyper-judgmentally. It was another of his many "Worst Moments".
We have tired of his lecturing us about how we should "love" our way out of the mess the Republic now suffers. We are, according to him, required to respect the socialist, the social justice warrior class, and others who will not rest until everyone in this nation will have a date issued by the district commissar to pick-up his/her annual allotment of clothes we are obliged to wear....by law. I, for one, shall not join that madness. The Red Left lives by the motto of "What is mine, is mine. What is yours is negotiable. Always assert, never deny!!!"
Cruz's point is that we have a choice between two people, each of whom is worse than the other in many ways. But, the un-spoken and obvious point is, should Donald Trump manage to win this ghastly election he will "rule" correctly by accident at times? If his ego is fed only slightly, I truly believe that he will be inclined to appoint Constitutionalists and Constructionists thinkers to the Supreme Court's Bench. Even judges at the Appellate Court level and at the important District Court positions would tend to be drawn from those disposed to follow the Common Law and the Natural Law concepts that serve to keep us somewhat removed from anarchy.
With both the Lower and Upper Houses of Congress under the control of the Republicans it is possible that the "log-jam" so loudly condemned by the public, might well break. It might be reasonably possible to overturn the Obama Socialised Medicine Initiative. It might be possible to enact a statute requiring a balanced budget and / or quickly beginning the process that would amend the Constitution so as to achieve the desired goal of a balanced budget.
The trick might well be the act of allowing credit to be given to Mr. Trump, so that he can "trumpet" his great success in Making America Great Again, so to speak. More than any other influences, the Republicans must disregard acting in reaction to the storms of protests, howling by the interminable stomachs and reproductive systems, government workers, Obsolete Press and marxist universities and "academics", and Solyndra Club members.
A slow and steady rollback of regulations and "executive orders" and such contaminants to the rule of Common Law, and possibly even the dissolution of various useless Secretariats and Bureaus would also be on the menu.
Therefore, Cruz's points were valid, and Beck's points ranged from absurd to asinine.
Thanks, as usual for your time and attention.
El Gringo Viejo
The recent interview by Glen Beck of Senator Ted Cruz left about a third of what is left of Beck's morning radio audience stunned into disbelief. To be brief, Beck essentially threw Cruz into the trash bin due to Cruz's tepid declaration that he would vote of Trump. Several million, arch-conservative, hard-right incurable Conservatives had arrived at that point, especially during the past 96 hours.
Most of us who listen to Beck do so because he and his posse have humourous (yes, Virginia, it is okay for Brits to spell humourous thusly, just for the pointless point of trying to preserve a bit of useless, inefficient antiquity) satiracle episodes, usually making fun of people who desperately need to be ridiculed.
Senator Cruz explained correctly that reality had presented a binary circumstance. To be quick, it essentially boils down to a variation of the "lesser of two evils" argument or position. In this case, however, there is a decent cherry atop the parfait. The parfait we are being served is not as pretty or pleasant as the one pictured here, but it does have a cherry on top. That cherry is not an illusion, nor is it a consolation prize. It is something remarkably valuable.
At the risk of offending Mr. Beck, who spoke in blasphemous and horridly profane terms on live national radio this past Monday concerning Sen. Cruz's explanation for voting for Trump, the episode revealed that Mr. Beck also thinks incoherently and hyper-judgmentally. It was another of his many "Worst Moments".
We have tired of his lecturing us about how we should "love" our way out of the mess the Republic now suffers. We are, according to him, required to respect the socialist, the social justice warrior class, and others who will not rest until everyone in this nation will have a date issued by the district commissar to pick-up his/her annual allotment of clothes we are obliged to wear....by law. I, for one, shall not join that madness. The Red Left lives by the motto of "What is mine, is mine. What is yours is negotiable. Always assert, never deny!!!"
Cruz's point is that we have a choice between two people, each of whom is worse than the other in many ways. But, the un-spoken and obvious point is, should Donald Trump manage to win this ghastly election he will "rule" correctly by accident at times? If his ego is fed only slightly, I truly believe that he will be inclined to appoint Constitutionalists and Constructionists thinkers to the Supreme Court's Bench. Even judges at the Appellate Court level and at the important District Court positions would tend to be drawn from those disposed to follow the Common Law and the Natural Law concepts that serve to keep us somewhat removed from anarchy.
With both the Lower and Upper Houses of Congress under the control of the Republicans it is possible that the "log-jam" so loudly condemned by the public, might well break. It might be reasonably possible to overturn the Obama Socialised Medicine Initiative. It might be possible to enact a statute requiring a balanced budget and / or quickly beginning the process that would amend the Constitution so as to achieve the desired goal of a balanced budget.
The trick might well be the act of allowing credit to be given to Mr. Trump, so that he can "trumpet" his great success in Making America Great Again, so to speak. More than any other influences, the Republicans must disregard acting in reaction to the storms of protests, howling by the interminable stomachs and reproductive systems, government workers, Obsolete Press and marxist universities and "academics", and Solyndra Club members.
A slow and steady rollback of regulations and "executive orders" and such contaminants to the rule of Common Law, and possibly even the dissolution of various useless Secretariats and Bureaus would also be on the menu.
Therefore, Cruz's points were valid, and Beck's points ranged from absurd to asinine.
Thanks, as usual for your time and attention.
El Gringo Viejo
____________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)