Tuesday, November 6, 2018

ARMED MILITIA TO MEET MILITARY AT BORDER AS INVASION SNAKES NORTH

ARMED MILITIA TO MEET MILITARY AT BORDER 
AS INVASION SNAKES NORTH 
BY SELWYN DUKE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
 
Armed civilians are right now heading to the southern border. Some call this dangerous “vigilantism.” Others say it’s how you respond to an invasion. One thing is for sure: It wouldn’t be happening had the government been doing its job.
President Trump aims to have Uncle Sam start doing its job, however, with 15,000 troops being deployed to the border and barbed wire already being laid in response to three separate invasion caravans snaking north through Mexico.
The Washington Post reported Saturday on the militia:
Gun-carrying civilian groups and border vigilantes have heard a call to arms in President Trump’s warnings about threats to American security posed by caravans of Central American migrants moving through Mexico. They’re packing coolers and tents, oiling rifles and tuning up aerial drones, with plans to form caravans of their own and trail American troops to the border.
“We’ll observe and report, and offer aid in any way we can,” said Shannon McGauley, a bail bondsman in the Dallas suburbs who is president of the Texas Minutemen. McGauley said he was preparing to head for the Rio Grande in coming days.
Unsurprisingly, the left-wing Post takes a dim view of the militia. It also subtly pooh-poohs Trump’s assertion that “‘unknown Middle Easterners,’ ‘very tough fighters,’ and large numbers of violent criminals are traveling” in the caravan with, as the paper puts it, “the women, children and families heading north on foot.” The truth?
As with the similarly misrepresented Muslim migration into Europe, the border patrol states that the invasion caravan is 70 percent “single men” (video below). Of course, the media portray it otherwise with their non-representative photos of, for example, the rare father carrying a child piggyback.


The media also claim that the caravan invaders are just good, desperate people. But it’s not only that some of the migrants are overweight and all appear well fed. It’s not just that the law of probability dictates that at least some of the 4,000 illegals (the number has dropped from 7,000) would have to be criminals. It’s that Mexican authorities already tell us how some of them have attacked their nation’s federal police and immigration agents with rocks, glass bottles, and fireworks. Moreover, the Daily Mail reports that the second invader caravan is armed with guns and bombs.
Yet the details are secondary. Illegal aliens are by definition unknown quantities, carrying unknown motives, weapons, and diseases. This is why sane nations have secure borders and ensure that only known quantities gain entry.
This brings us to the militia, whose members are by the media labeled “vigilantes.” Note that this term originated with 19th century vigilance committees; the first of these was formed in 1851 San Francisco because the government was unable (or unwilling) to control crime. Sound familiar?
(Note: Among other things, the San Fran vigilantes deported criminal aliens.)
Critics correctly note that militia presence increases the chances of rash action or an unjust shooting. But some entity must ensure domestic tranquility, and if the government won’t do it, _____________. Well, finish the sentence.
So don’t complain about militias. Complain about how a derelict, corrupt government makes them necessary.
How derelict has the government been? The most recent estimate is that approximately 22 million illegals reside in our nation, with possibly 700,000 entering yearly. Additionally, about “two-thirds (66%) of [illegal] adults in 2014 had been in the U.S.” at least a decade, according to Pew Research, with their median stay being 13.6 years. Talk about institutionalizing illegality.
Contrary to media spin, illegals are also far more likely to commit crimes than citizens are. As Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported in June, citing U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics relating to federal convictions, illegals account for:
• 22 percent of murder;
• 18 percent of fraud;
• 33 percent of money laundering;
• 29 percent of drug trafficking; and
• 72 percent of drug possession (video below).
This is despite illegals constituting only about 6.5 percent of the U.S. population.


The good news is that President Trump is trying to stop the invasion, though he’s hampered at every turn by immigrationist politicians and judges.
Why are immigrationists thus disposed? As I often point out, 85 to 90 percent of our post-1968 immigrants have hailed from the Third World; upon naturalization, 70 to 90 percent of those casting ballots vote for Democrats.
Here’s what this means in raw numbers: Approximately 1.3 million legal immigrants enter our nation every year. If one million ultimately remain and are naturalized and 50 percent of them vote, and 80 percent of that group breaks Democrat, it means 400,000 new Democrat and 100,000 new GOP voters annually. This is a net plus for Democrats of 300,000 voters every year, and three million every decade, the latter being Hillary Clinton’s 2016 reported popular-vote advantage. It also translates into 15 million new Democrat voters after half a century, which was as much as Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 popular-vote margins combined. Of course, illegal migration and resultant amnesties would only increase these numbers.
Does this provide a clue as to why Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential contests (and why the Democrats now despise the Electoral College)?
In fact, in our entire history up until 2000, GOP candidates won the presidency while losing the popular vote only twice. It now has happened twice since 2000 alone, with the Republicans capturing the popular vote in just one of its three victories (G.W. Bush, 2004). As for continuing to lose it while winning the Electoral College, remember that you can’t pull inside straights forever.
So, exit question: Do you really think leftists scream for (im)migration because they have compassion for semi-poor foreigners? Or could there be another motivation?
at