The way to a better life or an invasion by another name?

WASHINGTON, 10/25/2018—Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is expected to sign an order Thursday sending 800 or more troops to reinforce the U.S. southern border in anticipation of the arrival of a migrant caravan, officials said Thursday. President Donald Trump has called the approaching caravan, estimated at 7,000 people strong, a national emergency. The group departed today from Mapastepec, Mexico, more than 1,000 miles from the U.S. border. Mexican officials said nearly 1,700 migrants have dropped out of the caravan to apply for asylum in Mexico, and a few hundred have accepted government offers to bus them back to their home countries. A second, smaller caravan of Hondurans is also headed for the Mexican border. Estimates place its size at between 1,000 and 2,000 travelers. The second caravan is currently in Guatemala, about 200 miles behind the first group. It began on March 25 in the Mexican city of Tapachula, near the Guatemala border. The largest single group of migrants in this caravan is from Honduras, although there are also many Guatemalans and Salvadorans. There’s also bound to be a smattering, or more, of criminals, Islamic terrorists terrorists?, media fame hustlers, political agitators and other flotsam.

Violence in Central America continues to cause people to flee, despite falling homicide rates. Murders in Honduras and El Salvador fell by about 25 percent in 2017, but both are still among the most violent countries in the world. Street gangs known as “maras” are also ubiquitous and prey on small business owners and families through extortion. Many migrants this year said they joined the caravan because they felt there was safety in numbers while they traveled along the route from Mexico to the U.S. border. There is significant violence perpetrated by gangs who prey on migrants on the final leg north. I should add, there’s also a lot more to this spectacle than meets the eye. The timing is certainly interesting, coming as it does just before significant midterm elections in the United States. While the explanations given for the mass invasion attempt (whatever else it is, if it were successful in meeting it’s stated goal, it would be an invasion) sound plausible, and certainly apply to the real pawns migrants, who knows how much of this is really staged?

If the real migrants want to better their lives, I have a better, more long lasting, if more radical solution. I am not joking. If I were fleeing my home due to violence, I would welcome the opportunity to fight back. But fight back against whom? Most of the violence in the Central American countries and Mexico is due to drug cartels, and the corruption among the police departments and other authorities who are in the pay of the drug cartels. So how can a bunch of peasants who have no military training or weapons, take on the organized and powerful drug cartels? What if the United States were to say to the migrants, “you can’t come here, but if you want to fight for your homes and your future, we will equip you and train you.” Think of this as an updated Bay of Pigs counterattack. “That didn’t work out”, you say? My idea is very different.

These “re-patriots” would not be trying to overthrow a government, nor invading from the sea, like in Cuba. They would have the support of the populace, because that’s who they themselves are and what they want is the same as what everyone back home wants, except the drug cartels and corrupt police and politicians. They aren’t soldiers, but with the proper training and equipment, they would be formidable. An idea like this cannot be done halfway. If we are going to suggest and support it, so that these migrants can have a real impact on their own country and lives, we must be willing to give them every chance of success, even if it means deployment of American air power. The actual military tactics and logistics are beyond the scope of this blog, but isn’t the idea sound? After all, if you were offered the choice between leaving your homes and families to a corrupt Wolfpack, and wandering around trying to get into countries that don’t want you so you can constantly worry about being deported, vs. taking back what is rightfully yours and determining your own future, even at the risk of your life, what would you choose? Of course, I am putting this question to the real migrants, not the agitators, criminals and terrorists trying to infiltrate. If our Founding Fathers had not risen to the challenge of fighting for their homes and freedom, where would we be today?

What was “common” sense?

There are so many really stupid ideas promulgated by the perfection progressives (what I call “leftists”, “cultural Marxists”, “social justice” panderers, and their allies, because they demand perfection–by their definition–in our culture and institutions, and define truth as anything that’s new and untested), I hardly know where to begin, so I will zero in on a few of the more egregious or hypocritical. Most of the really, really bad ones concern the mutant children of the “sexual revolution“: gender bending dysphoria; sexual confusion-orientation; porn. But before I get to that mess, lets consider culture/ancestry dysphoria. Multiculturalism is celebrating other cultures, as long as you don’t step over the invisible line intocultural appropriation. Elizabeth Warren, a white on rice (or mayonnaise on white bread, if you prefer) Senator from the formerly great state (you’d have to go back before the Kennedy clan) of Massachusetts is the butt of jokes for claiming native American victim hood by virtue of a smidgen of Cherokee and Delaware ancestral genes. DNA testing, hardly a precise science, has pegged her as 1024th Indian. I would imagine that many Americans have that much Indian heritage. The Cherokee Nation has also weighed in on the matter. Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. issued the following statement: “A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

Then there’s the “sexual revolution.” Unlike our forerunners in 1968, we of 2018 have access to something they didn’t: 50 years of sociological, psychological, medical, and other evidence about the sexual revolution and its fallout. Thanks to the #MeToo movement, the time has come to examine some of that evidence. After all, at the root of all these stories of harassment and abuse is this: men forcing themselves upon women who did not want their attentions; men who have insisted, sometimes plaintively in their public apologies, that in their own minds, the acts were consensual. Even former president Bill Clinton had the temerity to tell PBS NewsHour in early June, “I think the norms have really changed in terms of what you can do to somebody against their will.” Where do otherwise sophisticated and knowledgeable men learn such obtuseness? Surely the credit belongs in part to pornography, which, like the revolution of which it is a mutated child, has become ubiquitous. Abuse of the first amendment probably started with defenders of pornography. Pornography deforms individual relationships and works its way like invisible ink into the scripts and expectations of our time. Finally, the #MeToo movement offers an opportunity to bridge ideological divides as the traditional cheerleaders of the sexual revolution reckon with the empirical record. The recent scandals have produced powerful new evidence for everyone to weigh. What are the two common denominators among the alleged offenses? One was the assumption that all women are sexually available at all times—what might be called the sexual revolution’s first commandment. The other is that many exploitative men have taken cover in venues closely identified with pro-revolutionary politics: Hollywood, corporate print, radio, and television journalism, Silicon Valley—and even the New York attorney general’s office.

Yes, cads and brutes have always been with us; yes, accusations shouldn’t be lodged cavalierly and need to be assessed carefully; and yes, as the examples of Fox News and other workplaces have revealed, harassment and accusations of harassment aren’t just a progressive thing. Even so, it is undeniable that a disproportionate number of the prominent men brought down by these scandals have been identified with—and sometimes indistinguishable from—a political worldview that enthusiastically embraces the tenets of the sexual revolution. Indeed, many proudly wore their feminist credentials on their sleeves. These men infiltrated important cultural precincts under the false flag of being “pro-woman” and succeeded because they were seen to be on “the right side” of the abortion debate. Wolves in Planned Parenthood clothing, they used pro-abortion politics as protective cover for harassment and exploitation, just as Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, who advocated for legal abortion many years before Roe v. Wade, also did in his lifetime. Just as castration to produce eunuchs as harem servants was disgusting until it became a cure for male gender dysphoria, thus defended and even promoted by the PP set, so was pornography disgusting until it became a “first amendment issue.” Except that it never was, because the First Amendment was addressed to Congress only, not individuals and groups who recognized the blight that porn has become.