Posted on 03/29/2008 7:01:32 PM PDT by BGHater
Sounds like she borrowed one of Dubya’s speeches.
I have to be accurate and vaguely I do remember some hi jinks from this much younger wife. I will have to check further. I know there was a big conference in Vancouver on bringing clean water to the third world countries. Margaret carried a jug of water on her head. Nice looking woman though.
Damaging to the feisty chauvinistic Trudeau were her sallies with those degenerates -The Rolling Stones. Photographs leaked as she got into a car with, I think, that man- Mick Jagger. She got a black eye from hubby.
Another monied young woman who was taken in by the sixties.
Toro mierda.
"The True History of the Southwest, 101"
The amount of historical idiocy and fallacies surrounding the history of the Southwest is staggering, chief among them the "Aztlan" fairy tales. What's the truth? How did the Spanish Europeans conquer the Southwest? The "conquistadores" (that means "conquerors") did it with the lance, and the lash.
For example, in 1541 Coronado entered present-day New Mexico (which included present-day Arizona during the Spanish era) searching for the "lost cities of gold." One of his first actions upon meeting the natives was to burn 100s of them alive in their dwellings, for not handing over suspected horse thieves. That is how Spain conquered the natives of the present US Southwest--not with hugs and kisses. It was certainly no love-fest between long-lost brown-skinned soul-mates, as it is often portrayed today by the delusional Aztlaners, who spin the "new bronze race of Mestizos" toro-mierda.
By 1821, Mexico City was strong enough to overthrow even more decrepit and ineffectual Spanish rule. However, the distant provinces of the current U.S. Southwest were far beyond the reach of the authority of the independent but strife-torn government of Mexico City. These distant northern provinces received neither military protection nor needed levels of trade from the south. Under Spanish rule, trade with the USA was forbidden, but at least Spain provided trade and Army protection from hostile Indians. Under Mexican abandonment and neglect, the Southwest received neither trade nor protection from Mexico City.
For example, Comanches and Apaches ran rampant in the 1830s in this power vacuum created by Mexican neglect, burning scores of major ranches that had been active for hundreds of years and massacring their inhabitants. Mexico City could neither defend nor keep the allegiance of its nominal subjects in these regions. Nor did it provide needed levels of trade to sustain the prior Spanish-era standard of living. Mexican governmental influence atrophied, withered and died at the same time that American pathfinders were opening up new routes into the region.
Increasingly, a growing United States of America was making inroads into the Southwest, via ships into California, and via gigantic wagon trains of trade goods over the Santa Fe Trail from St. Louis. The standard of living of the SPANISH in these provinces subsequently increased enormously, which is why they did not support Mexico City in the 1846-48 war. In fact, the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER considered themselves "Mexicans" at all, ever. They went, in their own eyes, from SPANISH directly to AMERICAN. To this very day, if you want a punch in the nose, just call an Hispanic native of New Mexico a "Mexican!"
So how long did Mexico City have even nominal jurisdiction (in their eyes) over the American Southwest? For only 25 years, during which they had no effective control, and the area slipped backwards by every measure until the arrival of the Americans. The SPANISH inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER transferred their loyalty to Mexico City, because all they received from the chaotic Mexican government was misrule, neglect, and unchecked Indian raids.
Since then, how long has the area been under firm American control? For 150 continuous years, during which time the former Spanish inhabitants of the region, now American citizens, have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of the Mexicans still stuck in Mexico. To compare the infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc of the two regions is to understand the truth. The Mexican government has been mired in graft, corruption, nepotism and chaos from the very start until today. The ordinary Mexican peons have been trampled and abused, while only the super-rich elites have thrived. This is why millions of Mexicans want to escape from Mexico today, to enjoy the benefits of living in America that they can never hope to obtain in Mexico.
And because today Mexico is a corrupt third-world pest-hole, (despite having more millionaires and billionaires than Great Britain), we are now supposed to let any Mexican from Chiapas, Michoacan or Yucatan march into the American Southwest, and make some "historical claim" of a right to live there?
From where does this absurd idea spring?
At what point in history did Indians and Mestizos from Zacatecas or Durango stake a claim on the American Southwest? Neither they nor their ancestors ever lived for one single day in the American Southwest. The Spanish living in the Southwest in 1846 stayed there, and became Americans by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There were no Spanish inhabitants of the Southwest who were marched to the border and driven into Mexico. It didn't happen. The SPANISH in the Southwest welcomed American citizenship, which brought stability, protection from Indian raids, and a vast increase in their standard of living with the increase in trade.
In summary, NO current inhabitants of Mexico have ANY claim on even one single inch of the Southwest!
NOT ONE citizen of Mexico is sneaking into the USA to reclaim property their ancestors were deprived of, NOT ONE.
They are criminal invaders and colonizers, pure and simple.
It's time Americans learned the true history, as a counter to the prevalent Aztlaner fairy tales.
“All thanks to Americans like GW. Bush.”
I have been on this immigration bug for 40 years, if you think that Bush is the cause, or the reason that it continues, then you must be new to it.
Just look at Canada, and Great Britain, and Scandinavia, and on and on, and you will trace it back to the generations that had the power in the 1960s when all of Western Civilization passed legislation to replace their voting populations with immigrants. The 50 and 60 year old leaders of the 60s doomed us.
Bush is a part of the problem but read this article and then work forward from 1965 to 2008 . (and far beyond Bush’s exit in 2009)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=55D115DA-C68A-40B5-831C-6071D194CE83
“Canada’s own Barack Obama was Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He was a socialist.”
He was a publicly announced by himself a communist!
Now, That’s a post!
Re your post on Margaret Trudeau. Checking as I should have done before, a magazine called Salon does have ie: #26 a listing of a group of ladies. Margaret Trudeau without panties. Although appreciative of the female form divine, I will not subscribe for any copy.
Very likely but I would like to reference the scource. Certainly, George Jonas a noted Canadian journalist, said over thirty years ago to this effect. There is no proof that Trudeau actively collaborates with Moscow Communists. His policies though make it, that he may as well be a Communist.
He joined the fledgling New Democratic Party, still a force in Canadian politics. He blatantly conceded that this party would never gain Federal power. He then joined the Liberal Party of Canada. The rest is history.
“If 47 million (Latinos) have one baby each ... it’s already won.”
Hey lady, you forgot something. The babies from 47 million Latinos paying the Social Security for all of the baby boomers. I’d say we won.
“I have been on this immigration bug for 40 years, if you think that Bush is the cause, or the reason that it continues, then you must be new to it.”
I’m no at all new to it, but Jorge Bush is more responsible for its continuation than any other American. The majority of American citizens have wanted the laws enforced since just after Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986 or 87. Citizens’ awareness of this situation has been increasing since then, and there have been 70%+ majorities who want illegal immigration controlled since before Jorge too office.
But he has deliberately done nothing to enforce the border, and tried every year (except, possibly 1981) to get passed his idiotic amnesty bills, but that was always DOA in the House. But, then, when he and Rove managed to fritter away the strongest Republican position in anyone’s lifetime, Jorge couldn’t hide his glee at the prospect of passing his amnesty with Democrats in control of Congress. That kicked off one of the bitterest internal party fights ever and further weakened the party.
Both Bushes got into office because of the party strength built up by others, and both frittered it away with their New England, country club Republicanism.
Were it not for 9/11 and all the patriotism and support that Jorge gained from that, he’d be the most despised president in anyone’s memory. But 9/11 served to hide for a time, all his “reaching across the aisle” liberal programs and his calculated and deliberate negligence in enforcing the borders.
But Jorge was at the wheel when illegal immigration could have, and should have, been gotten under control with huge support of the citizens. But he chose to follow his and Rove’s half-witted, Tex-Mex, open borders lunacy and has done huge damage to the Republican party and, most of all, the the USA at time when we should have begun to seriously enforce the law.
Now, it might be too late, or we might be in the final few years when it will even be possible to correct his situation.
It’s not possible to lay too much blame on Jorge for our immigration situation.
“But he has deliberately done nothing to enforce the border, and tried every year (except, possibly 1981)”
In #31, 1981 should be 2001.
That was a very confusing post, but one thing I do not want to do is have to wade through a childish word game like substituting Jorge for the presidents name George.
George is George, Hillary is Hillary, not Hitlery, and McCain is not McPain etc, I detest that stuff.
This Huerta bit*h should be arrested for treason.
The upcoming Civil War will be the re-set button, and white people have most of the firearms.
The ironic thing about all this “Aztlan” silliness is that 1% of the Mexican population, tall light-skinned descendents of the conquistadores, is rich beyond the wildest dreams of the other 99%, descendents of the indigenous population.
It would make far more sense for the peons in Mexico to revolt and run off their ruling class, rather than trying to turn this country into the third-world dungheap they came from.
The end result of that would probably ultimately be a hostile border, but defending that would be cheaper than subsidizing the 20+ million of them that are here now.
Go find it yourself, it was well publicized in the 70s many times.
“The upcoming Civil War will be the re-set button, and white people have most of the firearms.”
There will not be a civil war in America, this is a democracy and everyone votes.
This is a political issue.
“George is George, Hillary is Hillary, not Hitlery, and McCain is not McPain etc, I detest that stuff.”
Jorge is about the only one I ever use, and it’s used often by a good number of commenters with great justification.
If that post confused you, then you are far from the fount of knowledge on this subject you represented yourself to be.
“Go find it yourself, it was well publicized in the 70s many times.”
I don’t remember it, please confirm it.
“Democracy” is essentially a Greek word for “mob rule”.
Once the anchor babies vote themselves the ruling class over the European-ancestry minority, there’ll be civil war.
Count on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.