Painted into the Corner of a Labyrinth of No Return

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     El Gringo Viejo will be allowed to quote and reproduce by attribution from the prestigious Stratfor Report, which is famous for it analytics of various confrontations throughout the world, both of low and high intensity.   Our opinions and conclusions at times differ from the Stratfor assessment.   At other times we have substantial agreement with the evidence and conclusions drawn.  Then there are the times when we have concurrence or a mixture of concurrence and conditional agreement.

 

     That which is offered to the attention of the OROG to-day has a lot of concurrence. There is almost no disagreement. What is certain is that there is a mess throughout the whole of Africa north of the Sahara.  This is a gift from the always recalcitrant Euros who colonise, improve things a lot, and then turn tail and run at the first, second, or third uprising of those who want to "restore'' the sovereignty of their sacred soil.  The turning of tail is usually associated with the government in Paris, or Rome, or London, or Madrid, or Lisboa, or Amsterdam, or Brussels or some other Euro-type place deciding to try to remain in power by giving the dolts in their country free money, free medical care, free whatever....until of course it breaks the exchequer.

 

     The Empire collapses everywhere in the world, and the home country looks a little better than the day after World War II ended, but it is always painted in grey....the have nots always want more and forever resent the haves...and the haves further and  further isolate themselves leaving those countries to appear as fulfilments of the Orwellian image presented in 1984.

 

     The socialists and Marxists, and all the other hideous forms of the leftist panoply march to the tune of  La Internationale in their quest to establish the perfect human condition;   Whilst that side show is underway,  the various old colonies deteriorate into third-rate hell-holes that enjoy succession of pitiful, pompous dictators, who are always quick to criticise and blame any and every thing wrong with their countries on the Americans or the previous colonial holder of their country.   Ah!  Brazil.   At least for a while you held the throne of Lisbon in your territories, but alas to no avail.



     Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Egypt.....all tombstones in the resumes of Barack Hussein Obama and (Sir Edmund)Hillary with more to come.  Syria certainly and the Kingdoms of Jordan, perhaps even Morocco.  Before long it will all be a nihilistic cultural desert reverting to cannibalism if they have a little luck.   Just think of all Hillary has done for women and children.   Just think.

     Where El Gringo Viejo takes to a siding and allows the bigger train to pass us....it is a bigger train with more cargo, passengers, experience in military/political analytics and the like....it is in the assumption that Obama and his minders have any remote notion or concern about defending or even representing American interests in these or any world issue.   It is my certain and un-amendable assertion and belief that the chaos that Obama and his Soros-elitists minders have made, all of these messes, has been done purposefully.   It is why Obama has cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is why he has consistently backed the Muslim Brotherhood at every turn.  It is why the Muslim Brotherhood has more access to the White House than Bebe Netanyahu.   He wants to demonstrate that the United States of America is a waning power, being brought down by the sins of slavery and racism and the notion that there is anything such as private property.

     The Stratfor analysis assumes that Obama is in there on the golf course trying his best to make the Rubik's cube work out on a win-win basis for all, and especially for his favourite Nation...the good ole' USA.    Such is not our assumption.



    

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reprinted from the

Morning Stratfor Report
 

      Images of multiple dead bodies emerged from Syria last week. It was asserted that poison gas killed the victims, who according to some numbered in the hundreds. Others claimed the photos were faked while others said the rebels were at fault. The dominant view, however, maintains that the al Assad regime carried out the attack.

     The United States has so far avoided involvement in Syria's civil war. This is not to say Washington has any love for the al Assad regime. Damascus' close ties to Iran and Russia give the United States reason to be hostile toward Syria, and Washington participated in the campaign to force Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Still, the United States has learned to be concerned not just with unfriendly regimes, but also with what could follow such regimes. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have driven home the principle that deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor. In those cases, changing the regime wound up rapidly entangling the United States in civil wars, the outcomes of which have not been worth the price. In the case of Syria, the insurgents are Sunni Muslims whose best-organized factions have ties to al Qaeda.

Still, as frequently happens, many in the United States and Europe are appalled at the horrors of the civil war, some of whom have called on the United States to do something. The United States has been reluctant to heed these calls. As mentioned, Washington does not have a direct interest in the outcome, since all possible outcomes are bad from its perspective. Moreover, the people who are most emphatic that something be done to stop the killings will be the first to condemn the United States when its starts killing people to stop the killings. People would die in any such intervention, since there are simply no clean ways to end a civil war.

 

Obama's Red Lines

     U.S. President Barack Obama therefore adopted an extremely cautious strategy. He said that the United States would not get directly involved in Syria unless the al Assad regime used chemical weapons, stating with a high degree of confidence that he would not have to intervene. After all, Syrian President Bashar al Assad has now survived two years of civil war, and he is far from defeated. The one thing that could defeat him is foreign intervention, particularly by the United States. It was therefore assumed he wouldn't do the one thing Obama said would trigger U.S. action. 

Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst. His opponents are equally ruthless, and we can imagine them using chemical weapons to force the United States to intervene and depose al Assad. But their ability to access chemical weapons is unclear, and if found out, the maneuver could cost them all Western support. It is possible that lower-ranking officers in al Assad's military used chemical weapons without his knowledge and perhaps against his wishes. It is possible that the casualties were far less than claimed. And it is possible that some of the pictures were faked.

      All of these things are possible, but we simply don't know which is true. More important is that major governments, including the British and French, are claiming knowledge that al Assad carried out the attack. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a speech Aug. 26 clearly building the case for a military response, and referring to the regime attack as "undeniable" and the U.S. assessment so far as "grounded in facts." Al Assad meanwhile has agreed to allow U.N. inspectors to examine the evidence onsite. In the end, those who oppose al Assad will claim his supporters concealed his guilt, and the insurgents will say the same thing if they are blamed or if the inspectors determine there is no conclusive evidence of attacks.

       The truth here has been politicized, and whoever claims to have found the truth, whatever it actually is, will be charged with lying. Nevertheless, the dominant emerging story is that al Assad carried out the attack, killing hundreds of men, women and children and crossing the red line Obama set with impunity. The U.S. president is backed into a corner. 

       The United States has chosen to take the matter to the United Nations. Obama will make an effort to show he is acting with U.N. support. But he knows he won't get U.N. support. The Russians, allies of al Assad and opponents of U.N.-based military interventions, will veto any proposed intervention. The Chinese -- who are not close to al Assad, but also oppose the U.N.-sanctioned interventions -- will probably join them. Regardless of whether the charges against al Assad are true, the Russians will dispute them and veto any action. Going to the United Nations therefore only buys time. Interestingly, the United States declared on Sunday that it is too late for Syria to authorize inspections. Dismissing that possibility makes the United States look tough, and actually creates a situation where it has to be tough.
 

 

Consequences in Syria and Beyond

      This is no longer simply about Syria. The United States has stated a condition that commits it to an intervention. If it does not act when there is a clear violation of the condition, Obama increases the chance of war with other countries like North Korea and Iran. One of the tools the United States can use to shape the behavior of countries like these without going to war is stating conditions that will cause intervention, allowing the other side to avoid crossing the line. If these countries come to believe that the United States is actually bluffing, then the possibility of miscalculation soars. Washington could issue a red line whose violation it could not tolerate, like a North Korean nuclear-armed missile, but the other side could decide this was just another Syria and cross that line. Washington would have to attack, an attack that might not have been necessary had it not had its Syria bluff called.

 

      There are also the Russian and Iranian questions. Both have invested a great deal in supporting al Assad. They might both retaliate were someone to attack the Syrian regime. There are already rumors in Beirut that Iran has told Hezbollah to begin taking Americans hostage if the United States attacks Syria. Russia meanwhile has shown in the Snowden affair what Obama clearly regards as a hostile intent. If he strikes, he thus must prepare for Russian counters. If he doesn't strike, he must assume the Russians and Iranians will read this as weakness.

 

       Syria was not an issue that affected the U.S. national interest until Obama declared a red line. It escalated in importance at that point not because Syria is critical to the United States, but because the credibility of its stated limits are of vital importance. Obama's problem is that the majority of the American people oppose military intervention, Congress is not fully behind an intervention and those now rooting the United States on are not bearing the bulk of the military burden -- nor will they bear the criticism that will follow the inevitable civilian casualties, accidents and misdeeds that are part of war regardless of the purity of the intent. 

The question therefore becomes what the United States and the new coalition of the willing will do if the red line has been crossed. The fantasy is that a series of airstrikes, destroying only chemical weapons, will be so perfectly executed that no one will be killed except those who deserve to die. But it is hard to distinguish a man's soul from 10,000 feet. There will be deaths, and the United States will be blamed for them.

 

     The military dimension is hard to define because the mission is unclear. Logically, the goal should be the destruction of the chemical weapons and their deployment systems. This is reasonable, but the problem is determining the locations where all of the chemicals are stored. I would assume that most are underground, which poses a huge intelligence problem. If we assume that perfect intelligence is available and that decision-makers trust this intelligence, hitting buried targets is quite difficult. There is talk of a clean cruise missile strike. But it is not clear whether these carry enough explosives to penetrate even minimally hardened targets. Aircraft carry more substantial munitions, and it is possible for strategic bombers to stand off and strike the targets.

 

     Even so, battle damage assessments are hard. How do you know that you have destroyed the chemicals -- that they were actually there and you destroyed the facility containing them? Moreover, there are lots of facilities and many will be close to civilian targets and many munitions will go astray. The attacks could prove deadlier than the chemicals did. And finally, attacking means al Assad loses all incentive to hold back on using chemical weapons. If he is paying the price of using them, he may as well use them. The gloves will come off on both sides as al Assad seeks to use his chemical weapons before they are destroyed.

 

     A war on chemical weapons has a built-in insanity to it. The problem is not chemical weapons, which probably can't be eradicated from the air. The problem under the definition of this war would be the existence of a regime that uses chemical weapons. It is hard to imagine how an attack on chemical weapons can avoid an attack on the regime -- and regimes are not destroyed from the air. Doing so requires troops. Moreover, regimes that are destroyed must be replaced, and one cannot assume that the regime that succeeds al Assad will be grateful to those who deposed him. One must only recall the Shia in Iraq who celebrated Saddam's fall and then armed to fight the Americans.

 

     Arming the insurgents would keep an air campaign off the table, and so appears to be lower risk. The problem is that Obama has already said he would arm the rebels, so announcing this as his response would still allow al Assad to avoid the consequences of crossing the red line. Arming the rebels also increases the chances of empowering the jihadists in Syria.

 

      When Obama proclaimed his red line on Syria and chemical weapons, he assumed the issue would not come up. He made a gesture to those in his administration who believe that the United States has a moral obligation to put an end to brutality. He also made a gesture to those who don't want to go to war again. It was one of those smart moves that can blow up in a president's face when it turns out his assumption was wrong. Whether al Assad did launch the attacks, whether the insurgents did, or whether someone faked them doesn't matter. Unless Obama can get overwhelming, indisputable proof that al Assad did not -- and that isn't going to happen -- Obama will either have to act on the red line principle or be shown to be one who bluffs. The incredible complexity of intervening in a civil war without becoming bogged down makes the process even more baffling.

 

     Obama now faces the second time in his presidency when war was an option. The first was Libya. The tyrant is now dead, and what followed is not pretty. And Libya was easy compared to Syria. Now, the president must intervene to maintain his credibility. But there is no political support in the United States for intervention. He must take military action, but not one that would cause the United States to appear brutish. He must depose al Assad, but not replace him with his opponents. He never thought al Assad would be so reckless. Despite whether al Assad actually was, the consensus is that he was. That's the hand the president has to play, so it's hard to see how he avoids military action and retains credibility. It is also hard to see how he takes military action without a political revolt against him if it goes wrong, which it usually does.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 We hope that this treatise helps put things into focus for the OROG.   It is a horrid humanitarian situation, one that causes my pessimism to far outweigh any sort of optimism.   It was mishandled from the beginning by a poseur..not even a lightweight...who has never had even the remotest notion of what it would take to run a taco stand.    Come to think of it, the taco stand guy is a millionaire and billionaire in the making, so Obama would probably just demagogue him to death or tax him into the poor house.  After all there the taco stand guy can get stamps and Section 8.

 

El Gringo Viejo

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seriously. Syria?

     During the earliest part of the invasion of Iraq there were many reports of convoys of large tractor-trailer rigs heading into Syria with various types WMDs and WMD ingredients.   The story went that Hafez Assad welcomed the munitions into his country so as to establish a friendly understanding between him and Saddam Hussein.   It was supposed to be a demonstration of amicability and a statement of solidarity between two adversaries in the Arab world.   The Sandy Bergers and Zbigniew Bryzinskys of  the world scoffed at this news, pointing out that Assad and Hussein were mortal enemies and no such agreement to co-ordinate against the Gringos could be possible.  Of course, they conveniently forgot that during the first Gulf War, Saddam sent much of his puny air forces over to Iran to hide. Iran was the "good neighbour" with which he had fought for eight years with both parties suffering well over 1,000,000 casualties.   And yes, Hussein used WMDs against the Persians in that war.  

     News agencies, vigourously anti-Bush...(we remember Koppel posting the casualty lists nightly to the accompaniment of dirges and other ominous and morose music)....within the first six hours of combat were asking military spokesmen if Bush was rethinking  his folly after finding himself bogged down in a "quagmire".

     Just as immediately they began questioning almost anyone with a chance of knowing anything about the lack of uncovering the stashes of WMDs.   The Bushies, instead of leaking out information about the Bekaa Valley (or other possible hidey-holes in Syria) simply went mum on the issue.   We had the glorious Valerie Plame and hubby Joe Wilson story....with Wilson being sent to Niger to learn if Sadam Hussein had attempted to buy yellow-cake uranium from that source.

     Valerie landed the gig for her hubby because she worked in an administrative support position in Langley's CIA Headquarters.  Joe went to Niger and had tea with the poobahs.  They told Joe that there had been interest, but that sales had not been consummated.   Although Joe reported this to the  head of that particular division of the CIA, his conclusion was that Hussein was not trying to buy yellow-cake uranium.  His reasoning was, "The fact that Hussein was trying to buy yellow-cake was proof that  he was not trying to buy yellow-cake."

      And, of course, the greater issue is that Valerie was outed by Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby and Bush's deputy chief of staff Karl Rove....and exposed her to danger because she was an important Secret Agent Man.   Of course, neither Scooter nor Karl outed her.   She also had a Langley parking permit displayed prominently on her automobiles and she had had a lengthy sit-down with Vanity Fair magazine about what an important Secret Agent Man she was...and the she was a knock-out blonde, just like (Sir Edmund)Hillary.  The special prosecutor knew from the beginning that Richard Armitage (a Republican type of the Democrat Sandy Berger) was the actual "cad" who had "outed" a woman who had "outed" herself repeatedly, but that prosecutor dallied for over a year and a half in the effort to stain Libby and Rove.   Ethically devoid.


    And now the continuing soap opera written, produced, directed, and starring the American Progressive Movement....with leading cameos played by minder Valerie Jerrod, Michelle Robinson Obama, and a cast of millions of slack-jawed, focus-group trite-phrase speakers.  Tiger Woods plays Barak Obama, while Colon Powell plays Al Sharpton, and Al Sharpton plays Chief Justice John Roberts.   The name of the movie?   Arab Spring....WATCH as Barak Obama destroys two military victories won at great cost to the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Watch as Barak Obama skilfully sacrifices break point in the Match of Death by Jihad to the Muslim Brotherhood.
     But wait, Al Qaeda is coming up strong as opposing clics of bloodthirsty, deranged Muslim Rev. Jim Jones types of demons from Hell attempt to kill every Christian, Jew, Agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, and living thing as they then go about killing every Muslim with the slightest degree of difference with the circular firing squad's definition of Islam.
     Listen to Barak Obama....sounding very much like the Rev. Mr. Jim Jones in Guyana...reminding everyone that America has been arrogant and all of this Kool-Aid will be good....just drink it.....kill the children and the women so that they can be happy....and there will be a better day after the Arab Spring.

It is all madness.
What part of Hell did Obama come from?

El Gringo Viejo

Scandal Phoneys

     The current basket of loons composing the Control Group of the Obama administration....up to and including George Soros's groups of Zombies and Draculas along with the Joyce Foundation and the Annenberg Foundation and those two entities' hundreds of private and public progressive sapper battalion allies.....have gained the new title of Scandal Phoneys.

    As Progressives and Marxists,  they are bound by no morality.  Their common characteristic is to act all-knowing and well-intentioned while they prepare for their next publicly funded vacation or junket.   Their main tactic in the persuasion of the body politic is to frame an enemy and blame all ills on millionaires who pay no taxes and Tea Party people who want to take away the voting rights of transgendered refrigerators.


     The Phoneys are the one who generate scandal after scandal....then shriek,
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked the Republican Senator. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

     This particular reprint from the Independent Journal by Kyle Becker,of the hideous pretentious hag's point makes it clear in the following words, "Public accountability does matter, Mrs. Clinton. The days of Washington politicians pretending to hold themselves accountable during staged hearings that lead to nothing have to stop. It seems that the Republican Party finally got that message..."

      Frankly, however, we doubt that the Republican Party in the United States has any notion about going to the mat concerning this or any other of the various assaults against common law, common sense, common decency, or the Constitution of this Republic.   Ex-Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, guest hosting for O'Reilly on last night's program, extolled the virtue of group hugs between socialist Democrats and  "reasonable" Republicans.  Ex-senator Brown prefers the kind of Republican  who enters into every fray confessing his/her sins and by agreeing to compromise with Marxists and people who are dedicated to the destruction of the Republic, so as to demonstrate contrition for the sin of being a Republican, even if in name only.

 

     For those of us who watched one liberal Republican (Christi) stab another liberal Republican (Romney) in the front and back and any other available place....(Walk on the Beach with Barry, Crummy self-serving GOP Convention Speech, tepid campaign support generally)....it is difficult for us to understand why we then receive the blame for the outcome of the elections involving RINOs.   With McCain, it was his staff who came out with the long knives against Palin.

 

     And all of this goes to the point that the leadership of the GOP in the House and Senate are reluctant to move against obvious un-Constitutional procedures  being practiced by the President and his administration.   These people in the leadership are embarrassed by Representative Tray Gowdy dressing down the IRS hag for saying that she was taking the Vth, had done nothing wrong, and who then further made a statement outlining her innocence. One cannot take the Vth at the beginning of a period of testimony, then testify, and then refuse to answers questions concerning details of ones testimony.

    Lois Lerner is a real piece of arrogant puffery, as indicated by her blowing off the House Inquiry with her unfounded and ill-advised tactics.  Consider this tidbit from other of her bullying methods against private and religious schools when she is quoted  in a magazine article thusly:

 

      "Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of tax-exempt organizations who is overseeing the investigation, says many schools are rethinking how and what they report to the government. Receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS, she says, is a “behaviour changer.”

 



     One must ask, "Who is there among us to protect the Republic from the Rage of the Rabid Commissar?"    Why have these people not been led off in handcuffs?  How can Hillary be allowed to fly around the world, doing nothing, except providing her.....ample presence....and then lecture the members of an official panel of inquiry with an outburst so illogical and inscrutable that it caused the Mississippi River to run backwards for three days.

     We know the Phoneys....and their scandals.  We have a wonderful world for Democrats....and sons of Barak....and police behaving stupidly....and his mother being denied insurance....and the Marine Corpse.   We have a wonderful new campaign by the Campaigner in Chief...aimed once again at the low information, low intelligence, public assistance dependent dolt who provide Obama's teleprompter with those necessary dull catch terms and phrases....."special interests"...."phoney scandals"...."do what's best for the middle class"....."provide jobs for the American people"....etc. etc. etc.

What a wonderful world it would be.  But now, at least, even Maureen Dowd is seeing through (Sir Edmund) Hillary....but does that mean there's a Biden in our future?   What a meaningless, mediocre menagerie.

More later.   Good to be back.
El Gringo Viejo

WHO'S ON THE JOB?

 

Comedy legends, Bud Abbot (R) and Lou Costello

  

 

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 7.8%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%.

COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.

ABBOTT: 7.8% unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right; 7.8% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 14.7% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 7.8%.

COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?

ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work, you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can't count the "Out of Work" as unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are out of work!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But all of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking, and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment rolls, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how it gets to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment  down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like Congress.

Sent to El Gringo Viejo's attention from the Ranch on Big Sandy Creek....somewhere in Extreme Central Texas.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

     We have just returned from our little place on the side of Sierra Madre Oriental's massive slopes.   The drive is a bit exhausting and we were blessed with a minimal bridge line.  This was the last trip for our old 1992 Dodge Dynasty.   The last two weeks was an adventure.... first filled with the antics of slothful and negligent mechanics (first week)....and then with the services of a team of three mechanics who went  above and beyond (second week).

     The second team came out from Victoria (40 kilometres one way), on three occasions, doing difficult computer / electronic diagnosis, assembling and disassembling most of the top of the 3.3 V6 and tracking the "ghost" until finally finding the guilty part.   They then tracked down a used replacement that was in perfect working order.   The entire effort, including the replacement part, cost 1,600 pesos....which included 1,100 pesos for the replacement part.

     Most of my plans were interrupted by the lack of a vehicle and by the need to be close to the telephone to be able to take and give orders concerning the repair and schedule for the old Dynasty.   That, and just being to consarned lazy to walk a little distance to where a new, and much closer, chatroom has been established....about a mile from the Quinta.   Next time we shall avail ourselves of the facility and stay in better contact.

More to-morrow.
El Gringo Viejo

The Guantlet Is Thrown - A Veteran Mails His Letters

July 26, 2013

James R Hathorn

1566 Greenwood Lane

Forestburg, TX 76239

 

 

The Honourable John Cornyn

Senate Finance Committee

517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

 

Dear Senator Cornyn,

As a veteran of the Air Force, with two tours in Vietnam, and having worked for 29 years until retirement from a major company, I have invested much in this country and do not want to see it “fundamentally changed” from the greatest experiment is liberty ever conceived.

 This letter is in regard to the funding under consideration for the “Affordable Care Act” also called “Obamacare”.

 

This constituent is extremely concerned about the destruction this law will cause for our country.  There has never been a law created, passed, and now possibly implemented that was forced on the people in such a devious manner.

We now have one shot at stopping this law.  After that it will be virtually impossible to stop it from forever making us a truly socialist state.  If we do not act now there will be no recourse.

Please use all your resources to help defund or otherwise refuse to fund Obamacare.  We urge you to use every ounce of extra effort to influence your peers in the Senate to support you in this effort.  We believe this is the most important issue to face this Country since the original signing of the Bill of Rights.

 

We expect you to spend as much or more energy on this problem than any one you have faced since 2002 when you were elected as our State’s representative in the United States Senate.

You need only need 41 votes to stop the funding in the Senate by filibuster… probably the only last resort we will have if the House is able to do their part and send a budget de-funding Obamacare to the Senate.  If the Senate does its part, the budget will go to the President where he will be faced with either passage or veto.  In the case of a veto there would most probably be a government shutdown whereby the President will have to take full responsibility.

We know your Texas peer, Ted Cruz and the other freshmen Senators, Rubio, Paul, Lee, and several others will not rest until every vote is counted in favour of de-funding this terrible law.  These young representatives are the future of the Legislative branch of our government.  We Americans want to see them get the professional respect and consideration they deserve.  We hope you and the senior members will join them.”

Thank you for your attention to this most serious matter.

Sincerely,

 

James Hathorn

I cannot commit treason, said Franklin to the Parliament. I cannot commit treason against the King, because I am not his subject. I am an American,

 WE PIN THIS NOBLE BANNER ON THE DOOR OF THE OFFICE OF ONE ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    We cannot commit treason against the United States of America, because we have not conspired to overthrow the government or structure of that Nation.  What has happened to the United States of America is something that she has done to herself.   Our primary allegiance is owed to another place, because while we accept the fact that we lost the War Between the States, due to the willingness of the Union side to throw recently arrived Irish immigrants onto Confederate bayonets,  we have never withdrawn from the constant belief that all governmental control is best kept weak, and best kept within reach of a well-armed citizenry.

 

    To be within reach of ones government,  that government which has the greatest control of the ventures and adventures of its populace, it is best that that government be local, and certainly nothing beyond or larger than  a large old European Duchy or one of those pitiable European nations locked into the small corral of socialist bondage.

 

     The Americans have moved steadily, since the War Between the States, and more especially since 1933, on a path that has contradicted the intentions and functions of government as set forth in the Constitution of that great and noble Nation.  That entity was founded from within the clouds of expended gunpowder and upon the sacred grounds blessed by the blood of its sons.  It was blessed by many favours by Providence.

 

     The cause of the War against the Crown was, quite simply, haughtiness and arrogance, on the part of the Crown and Parliament.   They knew inside their brains and souls  that they were strong and that the colonists were wrong.   In an Empire where they could show the highest regard for a "king'' of an unknown island in the Pacific where breadfruits could be harvested, the British betters could show only slight regard for the Welsh and the Scots, no regard for the Irish, and even less for the Americans.

 

     We point out these failings as they now repeat themselves.    The American Constitution has been folded and stretched to the point that the words have begun to change meaning.  The people who run the affairs of the populace have no problem engaging in the most ridiculous contortions.  To wit:

    

      Article I -  Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a

                           Religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging
                           the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
                           of the   people peaceably to assemble, and to
                           petition the Government for a redress of grievances.....


 ......becomes something that means that manger scenes on a common are prohibited.   Any displays of a religious nature become verboten because the many might offend the few.  Somehow, the will and the ability of the few to offend the many became, over the years, more important.
     This is in spite of the fact that, in America, things moved along with simple abrasiveness between and among the many and varied views of the Cosmos and the deities emanating from those precincts with surprisingly little difficulty, relative to other heterogeneous cultures.   It seems to have had much less bloodletting than what the English had enjoyed only a few score years before the establishment of the United States of America.
     One is humoured, for instance, that so much killing, beheading, yelling, and screaming could accompany, even to this day, people of an Anglican Church and a Roman Church  having an argument over the importance of one bishop or another, between two Denominations that share but a hair's breadth in difference.   At least they were no so long ago.

     But our differences have become more grave here on this Continent.  It has become an issue of whether we shall be relegated to the role of laboratory mice, to be ruled by social engineers playing the role of the mad professors, or if we are to live as freemen and sovereigns  as sons of the Creator.

     We prefer to live, and we must live, apparently, grouped together among ourselves, abiding by a social compact between each of us with others of us.
     However,   we now find that within the precinct of Washington, District of Columbia there is a disposition to impose at every turn,  rules, prohibitions, licensings, permitting requirements, compliance demands, taxation for projects which we oppose as a people, and taxation and deployment of our citizens to wars that are not declared.
      Over the past 20 years citizens of Texas have been deployed and have helped win three different undeclared wars, and all three wars have been won, make no mistake.   Much, if not most of the victory was secured by Texians and people drawn from the States of the old Confederacy.   While we do not disregard in the least the contributions of the millions of others, we do point out, as Texians,  that we have a particular resentment as we watch this present Administration and its governance throw away these victories, however complicated, and allow the gains made both for the United States of America and the countries where we invested so much. t0 be squandered.
     The compulsion of the Democrat Party and its leaders, especially those found in the United States Congress and in this present administration to allow the gains made during these wars to dissolve like sand castles built too close to the high tide reflects the innate, intuitive, and instinctive anti-American mentality of the present administration.

     We could await new elections, but there is little recourse.   One party is bound and determined to follow the road to perdition that is mapped out by the socialist elitists.  Perpetual deficits, perpetual stagnation, perpetual demagoguery, and perfect control over each least and greater aspect of every person's life is the aim of these intellectuals.  They know nothing and understand less.  Their supposition that they, and they alone, know the proper deployment of the time of each person's allotment on this Planet bespeaks that perfect arrogance of the perfectly ignorant.  They are certain that they are the first ones to have discovered the magic method of governance.
     And, there is another party that seems ever disposed to lose gracefully and search for another sword to render to the enemy to formalise each defeat.

    And there are the Libertarians, even those who are natural and common law types who have gained some place in the Washington, D.C. environment. They seem to offer something  that is very similar to our traditional values, but it is  tinged with a kind of respect for upper-class anarchy that would replace In God We Trust on our currency with "I'm Okay, You're Okay".

     There are those who see these machinations in Washington, D,C. as a form of conspiracy; that both political parties are actually the same under the control of ten or one thousand very powerful people who know where all the controls are and how to operate them.   There are others such as this writer, who point to the historical truths.   Among  those truths is that there have been many  who thought they are in control, and almost all  arrived at unfortunate endings.

     Here, in Texas, we do not care any longer what transpires in Washington, D.C. in increasing numbers.   We cannot commit treason, because we are Texian.   We are reassured in our conviction because we witnessed the Attorney General of the United States of America essentially declare War upon our Country.   When we were finally liberated by  a condescentious Supreme Court in their determination that the time had long passed for any real value for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to be applied to Texas, the Attorney General was quick to notify the American public that he is poised to file suit against the Republic of Texas due to Texas's continued and demonstrable pattern of racial and/or ethnic discrimination in terms of accessing the right to vote.

     It is a form of derangement.  Texas has Black people who are Republicans representing districts that are majority White in the Texas Congress.  Texas has Latins who are Republicans who have represented and continue to represent ethnically mixed districts in the United States Congress.   Texas has 75 per cent of its territory and about that same number of its citizenry under Republican control byCounty and incorporated entities.  In those areas, perhaps one or two per cent of the public corruption takes place within the Republic of Texas.   The Democrats have about 25 per cent of the territory, counties, and incorporated entities and about the same percentage of the Republic's population.  And, they have about 98 per cent of the public corruption that is committed in the Republic.
     There is absolutely no restraint placed against any citizen of this entity in terms of accessing and casting a ballot in any election.   The complaint arises strictly from areas where ultra-leftist operatives, trying to instigate unrest, especially of an ethnic or racial nature, try to point out preposterous scenarios that could possibly keep a 143 year old "Hispanic" from being able to vote.   It is outlandish, impossible, ridiculous, insulting, and a form of pernicious mendacity that we, as Texians, reject categorically and totally.

     The mere fact that a member of the Executive Department of the Government of the United States of America, to wit: Eric Holder, would level such a charge and threaten this entity with legal action essentially serves as a foundation for dissolution of Union.  It absolutely justifies our resolve and our correct conclusions.
     With the Mexicans we have our problems, but we also have our solutions.   We also have our good times, fond memories, sound friendships, and much more positive than negative freight in our bags.   We can conduct our own arguments and agreements with them much better than can the Central Government in Washington, D.C. no matter who is residing in the White House.
   We particularly resent that we are lectured on ethnic and racial matters, when the  Attorney General, has been held in Contempt of Congress for various administrative and moral failures not the least of which have been failure to comply with subpoenas and lying under oath....a felony.
     And concerning the Mexicans, Eric Holder, as Attorney General, has never adequately or even minimally, explained how guns that he authorised to be placed in the hands of bloodthirsty cartel gunmen managed to be involved in the killings of hundreds of innocent collateral civilians caught between cartel confrontation, or in confrontation between cartel elements and the Mexican military.
     Eric Holder and his Government Union thugs under his supervision fed hundreds of what they thought would be untraceable weapons, many of them easily automaticised, into the hands of the drug cartels.  The intent was clearly to establish the notion that  these firearms were being sold by gun dealers in Arizona.   The problem is that the firearms were being bought or taken by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents under the premise that they were going to be used in a renewal of a variation of the Bush administration's "Wide Receiver" program that fed weapons to the cartels with tracking chips.
     Bush's administration had some success, co-ordinating with the very reliable Mexican Army and Naval Infantry until suddenly the Army had to advise the American Justice Department that the cartel people  had figured out that the firearms they had gained were "chipped".   Agents involved were withdrawn and the program discontinued overnight.
    The Obama initiative, handled by the proven liar and prevaricator Eric Holder, was designed simply to show that American firearms sellers and buyers were untrustworthy and the ATF was therefore, by executive order, going to shut down all private firearms and ammunition sales.

     The fact is that the Obama people and Obama himself were unaware that the Mexicans have a fairly good forensic ability.  It is a form of bigotry that the Obama people and Obama had this opinion.   But suffice to say when large numbers of dead and wounded children, women, men, and semi-honest cops, and honest cops, and heroic soldiers and heroic naval infantrymen are being tabulated as the days went by, the Mexican authorities were puzzled by the fact that the weapons traced back to the ATF.
    And, they had no co-ordination agreement.   The Army and Naval Infantry had all but a perfect record in such co-0rdination and was confused about having been left out of the loop.   The Obama administration has never responded to the issue, choosing instead to say that it was (a) classified as a matter of national security, and then later (b) guns that had been supplied by private parties after illegal sales by gun shops and dealers, probably....which was a lie, or (c) on national Spanish language television during the 2012 presidential campaign, by saying that he had inherited the program from the Bush Administration and shut it down early in his administration. 
 
  And all the innocent dead and wounded Mexicans?   Since Obama and the Democrats and Eric Holder care so very much about civil rights and for "Hispanics", it is odd that there has  not been one word of acknowledgement or lamentation.   Another form of lying.
   All of those involved at the field level have been either allowed to retire under full pensions or have been promoted to higher paying positions in Washington, D.C. to serve out their days.  It is, to be sure, a peculiar punishment, or perhaps it is a reward for not divulging or testifying accurately about the particulars of this horrid episode.

    Amazingly, these are the least of his offenses against the old and noble Constitution of the American Union. Before,  he had  specialised in things like the dirty business of arranging the obtaining of Presidential Pardons, as in the Marc Rich case with Hillary and William Jefferson Clinton, during the latter's last hours in office in 2001.

     As an orginal apologetic for the increasingly obvious need for Texas to withdraw and join the sisterhood of Independent Nations, I submit these observations as a call to passive and active measures to the end of a deserved independence from the continued abuse by rule by bureaucrat and decree.

In this I believe.
David Christian Newton

aka El Gringo Viejo.