build the wall

It’s Finally Time For the U.S. Military to Defend the Homeland

At arguably no point in the lifetime of any living American has the U.S. military been used to defend U.S. soil. Our Middle Eastern forays over the past few decades were completely unnecessary and ultimately probably made us less safe than if we had never gotten involved there in the first place. Vietnam resulted in the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and over 2 million Southeast Asians.

There is a case to be made that the Korean War was ultimately a just war given the stark contrast today between the half of the Korean Peninsula we liberated (South Korea) and the other half that we didn’t (North Korea). But at the end of the day, communism in Korea doesn’t affect America at all. I’m not talking about “U.S. Interests™” (a globalist term used to justify going to war in faraway places). I’m talking about American soil itself. We were never under any sort of threat by the Korean communists.

Many would say that World War II was the last “just war” this country ever fought, and up until quite recently I would have whole-heartedly agreed. But Pat Buchanan makes an excellent case that WWII was not worth it, and he’s convinced me to view WWII in a whole different light. After all, it began as a territorial dispute between Germany and Poland over a small bit of land (Danzig) that Germany rightfully felt was unfairly taken from it at Versailles following WWI, and ended up as the bloodiest conflict in human history:

“Churchill is the “man of the century” for persuading Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany in 1940, Britain’s “finest hour.”

But at war’s end, what was the balance sheet of Churchill?

The Poland for which Britain had gone to war was lost to Stalinism and would remain so for the entire Cold War. Churchill would be forced to accede to Stalin’s annexation of half of Poland and its incorporation into the Soviet Bloc. To appease Stalin, Churchill declared war on Finland.

Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.

France would end the war after living under Nazi occupation and Vichy rule for five years, lose her African and Asian empire and then sustain defeats and humiliation in Indochina in 1954 and Algeria in 1962.

Who really won the war?

Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

After the war, every country in Europe east of Austria was under Soviet Rule. An estimated 20 million people were either starved or murdered by the Bolsheviks by the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and millions more were enslaved in the gulag archipelago–a network of labor and torture camps that put Hitler’s to shame. Some estimates even put the final Soviet death toll at over 60 million. And this does not even include the 70-85 million combined civilians and soldiers killed during WWII.

Was WWII worth 100 million+ lives, especially considering it also resulted in the collapse of the British and French empires and the rise of the Soviet Union?

And don’t tell me the Nazis were seeking GLOBAL DOMINATION. They were never going to try to invade America. For Pete’s sake their navy couldn’t even conquer Britain, and that was before we entered the war. How were they ever going to cross the Atlantic Ocean and conquer America? The idea is laughable.

There’s little evidence Hitler wanted to annex anything more than the land Germany had lost following World War I, which is to say Danzig, Czecholslovakia and the Rhineland. Here’s a map of Germany in 1944 at the height of Nazi power:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 1.16.38 AM.png

And here’s a map of the German Empire prior to WWI:

external-content.duckduckgo.jpg

Almost identical, no? Hitler’s aim was to retake all the territories he felt were unjustly ripped away from Germany at Versailles. Nothing more. He only went to war with France because the French declared war on Germany first, after Hitler invaded Poland. This is an indisputable historical fact.

The point here is to illustrate that virtually none of the wars of the past century were worth it. Don’t even get me started on World War I: if we hadn’t gotten involved in World War I, there would have never even been a World War II.

The U.S. military has been consistently and repeatedly misused for the past century-plus.

Importantly, none of what I’m arguing here is to disparage or belittle the troops or anything our boys have done on our behalf–don’t take it that way. Our troops obey their superiors and have fought valiantly wherever they’ve been sent.

What I’m saying is that the people in charge have not for a very, very long time used our military justly and deservedly. My ire is directed entirely at the people in charge, not the troops.

The purpose of the military is to defend the homeland from immediate threats, and it hasn’t done this since the 19th century.

The major reason our military hasn’t been used to defend the homeland in well over a century is simple geography: America benefits from the fact that it only borders two other countries, Mexico and Canada, and is sandwiched by two vast oceans which insulate it from the chaos of the “Old World,” i.e. Europe and Asia. After our great nation had established itself as a major power around the start of the 20th century, none of the old world powers in Europe and Asia wanted any trouble with us. It’s not difficult to see why: our economy had become a juggernaut, our relative size advantage made us formidable, and our location an ocean away made it generally unnecessary for us to meddle in the affairs of the old world.

This is how things have traditionally been in human history: nations used to only go to war with neighboring countries. Up until the era of imperialism–and its successor, globalization–there was never any reason for America to go to war with Japan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Germany. Rome never went to war with the Han Dynasty in China.

Everything used to be more or less regional.

When you look at our military from the perspective that it exists for no other reason than to defend the homeland, the logical conclusion is that the only “just war” we could ever fight would be one with Canada or Mexico, or perhaps some country/countries in the Caribbean (Communist Cuba specifically comes to mind) or in South America.

In light of that, and given the present state of affairs in our corner of the world, the only situation that would truly justify mobilizing the U.S. military would be going to war with the Mexican drug cartels, an idea President Trump floated today in light of the news that nine Americans were brutally murdered by the Mexican drug cartels just 42 miles from the U.S. border:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.07.50 AM.png

The details of the massacre are sickening, and as such now have many Americans entertaining the idea of a war with (more accurately, in) Mexico for the first time since the 1840s.

At first blush, the idea of going to war in Mexico seems crazy. We Americans are not used to the idea of a war being fought on our doorstep. We’re used to our wars all being fought “over there.” And it’s not as if Mexico’s government itself has done anything to warrant us declaring war on it.

But the crucial fact here is that we wouldn’t be going to war with Mexico, we’d be assisting Mexico’s government in its war on the cartels.

In the Mexican Drug Cartels, America may now, after well over a century, have a true, genuine reason to actually go to war.

The drug cartels must be destroyed primarily because their drugs are destroying America. Drug-related deaths have skyrocketed over the past 20 years in America to never-before-seen levels, and this is mostly because of the cartels.

Drug culture in America is out of control. Just about everyone knows someone–either in their community or their own family–that has either died or had their life ruined due to drug use. Many millions of Americans’–young and old–lives revolve around drugs, and this is because of their ready availability due to the cartels.

Drug trafficking into America has become an enormous business. The main cartels in Mexico rake in more money than many of the companies on the S&P 500. The famous kingpin of the Sinaloa Cartel “El Chapo” Guzman had a net worth of over $12.6 billion by the time he was sentenced to life in prison this past July. A 2017 study found that the global drug trade was worth at least $462 billion per year, and the Mexican cartels represent a large chunk of that.

Most of the drugs that enter America come from either Mexico, Peru or Colombia, and the cartels facilitate the whole process. Business Insider has a bunch of maps that show where all the drugs come from, but here’s the main one:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.21.09 AM.png

The majority of the drugs that make their way into the U.S. from their South American origin points come through Mexico by way of the cartels. Stories of the cartels’ violence have grown more and more common with each passing year.

The cartels are now so powerful that they’re going toe-to-toe with the actual Mexican Army and winning. You may recall hearing last month about how the Sinaloa Cartel tried to spring their new boss, Ovidio Guzman Lopez (El Chapo’s son and successor), from police custody by waging a full-on firefight with the Mexican Army in the city of Culiacan. The Mexican government attempted to portray the cartel’s attempted prisonbreak as a “failure” but wound up releasing Lopez to purportedly “defuse” the situation. Does that sound like something a government solidly in control of its own country would ever do? Of course not. They were militarily overpowered by the cartel.

And this is all happening just on the other side of our border.

Another major reason the drug cartels must be destroyed is that they are also destroying Mexico itself, and that affects America. A major driver behind mass immigration (both legal and illegal) is the simple fact that America is much safer than cartel-controlled Mexico. Lots of Mexicans are simply trying to flee the violence that now ravages their country.

The power of the cartels has grown so much over the past few decades that it now rivals and arguably exceeds that of the Mexican government itself. They have destabilized the Mexican government to the point where it now poses a direct threat to actual U.S. interests (as opposed to “U.S. Interests™” in the globalist sense).

The cartels are destroying the fabric of our communities with their drugs. Their violence is causing an immigration surge that America cannot handle. And now they are brutally murdering Americans who happen to cross their paths.

A wall alone is not enough to keep America safe from the failed state south of our border.

At long last, it is time to call upon the American military to do the one thing it exists to do, yet has not been ordered to do in more than a century-and-a-half: defend the homeland from immediate danger.

The Wall is Going Up

The Supreme Court delivers:

Trump is right to point out the Rule of Law aspect, as this should never have been a matter for the courts to decide in the first place. There is no genuine constitutional question as to whether President Trump can do this; it’s only become a question because leftwing Open Borders federal courts accepted the case after it was filed dishonestly by leftwing Open Borders groups.

No matter what sort of legal jargon this gets bogged down in, never lose sight of the main point: should we have a border wall or not? Democrats are doing everything in their power to stop the wall from going up and make it seem like this isn’t ultimately about the wall, but it is.

Now 100 miles of fencing can go up:

Build it.

Now, the US-Mexico border is almost 2,000 miles long so we’re going to need a lot more than this to get it fully secured, but I’ll take this nonetheless.

For a while I’ve been trying to find a graphic that shows the most porous sections of the border and after some time I was able to find this:

My initial assumption was that the Rio Grande portion of the border was the most naturally secure due to the presence of the river, but apparently the opposite is true: the Rio Grande is where the highest number of illegals are apprehended.

Perhaps that’s because southern Texas is the southernmost part of the US mainland and thus the closest part of the border for most Mexicans.

Also, Google Map’s terrain view shows that much of the US-Mexican border and especially northern Mexico is a desert, meaning it’s far more difficult to traverse than the Rio Grande valley:

Mexico’s population density map bears that out: nobody really lives in that north/central desert region. The population is mostly concentrated in the southern/central part of the country:

So of course the southern tip of Texas would be the most common destination for most illegals coming from (or through) Mexico.

Anyway, border walls work. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agrees:

The Israeli wall is almost impenetrable:

A fence worked in Hungary:

And of course the most heavily secured border on earth, the Korean DMZ, has a big ass fence. Nobody gets through.

Walls work. And we need a big one along our entire border to keep out the illegals.

The Left is Ready to Stop Pretending to Oppose Open Borders

This is how it goes. First, the right accuses the left of wanting some policy goal (say, gun confiscation and repealing the Second Amendment) which the left pretty obvious wants. The left, however, knowing that said policy goal is wildly unpopular with the American people, vehemently denies they want the policy.

However, before long, the left will inevitably come out in favor of the policy goal they previously spent a good deal of energy denying they wanted.

Leftists in 2012: “Nobody wants to take your guns.”

Leftists in 2018: “Repeal the Second Amendment, and we’re coming for your guns”

rzew0pare3401.jpg

This guy is definitely gonna wrestle your guns away from you:

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 4.52.05 PM.png

Or maybe that’s a girl. I genuinely can’t tell.

At any rate, today, “We are coming for your guns” is the mainstream consensus position of the Democratic Party, even though several years back they vigorously denied it and claimed they supported and respected the Second Amendment.

When did they change their minds? Never: they’ve always wanted to confiscate all the guns and repeal the Second Amendment. The only difference now is that they feel safe showing their true colors.

It was the same thing with gay marriage: prominent Democrats insisted right up until the 2012 election that they opposed gay marriage and believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Then they all publicly came out in favor of gay marriage. They were always privately in favor it, and we on the right knew it all along, but by 2012 they felt as if it was politically safe for them to come out and admit it.

Socialism is another thing Democrats have always pretended to be against while privately being in favor. Then the proud and open socialist Bernie Sanders ran for President in 2016 and was quite popular, proving once and for all that, yes, Democrats are socialists. The party’s new face is Congresspersyn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is proud to be a “democratic socialist”. Democrats are socialists. They’ve always been socialists, of course, but now they’re comfortable with admitting it.

And the Uniparty “media” claims we’re the ones who have taken an extreme turn.

The latest issue the Democrats are about to stop pretending to oppose is open borders. Someone named Farhad Manjoo wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times entitled, “There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders.” Remember the day January 16, 2019, because that’s the moment the Democratic Party took the first step toward formally and publicly supporting open borders (“formally and publicly” being the key words, because they’ve always been for open borders privately):

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 5.21.30 PM.png

Here’s an excerpt:

“The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers.

Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

When you see the immigration system up close, you’re confronted with its bottomless unfairness. The system assumes that people born outside our borders are less deserving of basic rights than those inside. My native-born American friends did not seem to me to warrant any more dignity than my South African ones; according to this nation’s founding documents, we were all created equal. Yet by mere accident of geography, some were given freedom, and others were denied it.”

Fantastic reasoning: it’s “unfair” that most of the world was not born in America, the greatest country on earth. So let’s just let everyone in the world move to America!

This is how it starts. First an Op-Ed in the New York Times, then the rest of the Democratic Party elite will come out in favor of open borders. Right now, GOP virtue signalers and cucks are pushing back against the claim that the New York Times itself has formally come out for open borders, pointing out that it’s only an op-ed writer who has come out for open borders and he doesn’t necessarily speak for the NYT overall:

Come on. Stop denying what we all know to be true. I know Guy Benson and the rest of the Fake Republicans dream of one day writing for the New York Times, but this is just ridiculous.

Manjoo’s op-ed was the NYT testing the waters to see what kind of response it would get. If the response was negative, they could say, “Hey, it’s just an op-ed. Doesn’t mean it’s the official position of this newspaper. That’s one guy’s opinion. We just published it.”

But we all know better. Nobody publishes an op-ed unless they more or less agree with it. Outlets only provide platforms to those views which they seek to promote. Only a fool would believe otherwise. I know the disclaimer at the bottom of every op-ed says “this does not necessarily reflect the views of the paper at large,” but we all know what’s going on. The NYT very seldom runs op-eds by people who go against Uniparty dogma.

Eventually the NYTimes editorial board will formally announce the paper’s support of open borders. We all know it’s coming.

More to the point, we all know the left has always wanted open borders. 

Now, they’re finally audacious enough to admit it.

What could be the next issue the left “evolves” on? Pedophilia. I’m serious. You don’t have to look very hard to find SJWs and freaks on Twitter trying to argue that there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia. And Twitter isn’t exactly doing much about it, either.

If you think it’s ridiculous that pedophilia could one day in the future (10-15 years down the road) come to be openly embraced by the left, consider that in 1985 it was also pretty inconceivable to think that the Democrats would in just under 30 years make support for gay marriage their party’s official stance.

Summed up, the process for Democratic “evolution” on issues is as follows:

  1. “That’s ridiculous. Nobody wants x.”
  2. “Okay, maybe some of us want x.”
  3. “The Democratic Party now officially endorses x.”
  4. “Anyone who opposes is evil.”

Open borders is the next x. They’re about to go from, “You’re crazy. We don’t want open borders.” To: “Anyone who opposes open borders is racist.”

What will follow? It’s anyone’s guess. There are a number of contenders, including polygamy and pedophilia.

There’s also free healthcare and welfare for illegals (already happening in California and New York City), as well as voting rights for illegals, but I would say open borders automatically includes healthcare, welfare and voting for foreigners, no?

Another contender would be the War on Traditional Masculinity, but the American Psychological Association has already formalized the left’s opposition to that.

Perhaps they’ll come out in open support of white genocide next? “War on White People? Pfft. That’s absurd. White people have the most privilege!” Eventually, “Actually, the War on White People is Good and anyone who opposes it is Evil.”

The bottom line is that anything you suspect leftists truly want, they probably do, no matter how much they deny it.

***

Also, I keep seeing all this talk about how we need millions of foreign immigrants (presumably low-skilled ones) to combat our “population crisis” and ensure that we remain a nation with a steadily increasing population. From the Manjoo piece:

“Economically and strategically, open borders isn’t just a good plan — it’s the only chance we’ve got. America is an aging nation with a stagnant population. We have ample land to house lots more people, but we are increasingly short of workers. And on the global stage, we face two colossi — India and China — which, with their billions, are projected to outstrip American economic hegemony within two decades.”

Oh, no! Our GDP might not increase as much! Why is GDP the be-all, end-all? Why is GDP the measure of a nation’s worth.

Don’t get me wrong, to a large extent, GDP does tell you a good deal about the state of a given nation, but you can’t boil everything down to GDP.

“More people = more workers = more production = higher GDP = Everything Awesome” is how the globalist elite thinks.

We have a depraved culture of sex and hedonism, a crisis of masculinity, an opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, a spiritual and emotional void caused by superficial consumerism and obsession with entertainment, eroding family values and families themselves, and we are balkanizing into self-segregation along ethnic and racial lines.

And our elites think all we need is more immigrants to boost GDP.

On a related note, Britain apparently never got the memo that immigrants boost GDP. Britain’s GDP per capita (the measure that matters the most) declined by almost 20% in just four years primarily due to increased migration:

https://twitter.com/porter14159/status/1085707152835125248

Nancy Pelosi Tries to Delay the State of the Union Address to Silence Trump; Trump Responds by Canceling Pelosi’s Overseas Trip

Boy, I’m sure glad Democrats retook the House so they could Restore Civility and Dignity to Washington and prevent Orange Man from destroying our Institutions:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi renewed her call Thursday to delay the State of the Union address, saying the date is not “sacred” and President Trump should wait to deliver his message to the nation until the partial government shutdown ends.”

There are two reasons behind this:

  1. Nancy is trying to use the SOTU as a bargaining chip to force Trump to reopen the government without funding the wall, which is what the Democrats have wanted all along. “Reopen the government without wall funding and I’ll let you deliver the State of the Union.”
  2. Above all, Pelosi does not want Trump to be able to deliver a nationally televised address in which he can make the case for a border wall. The Democrats have no good answer for why we can’t have a border wall because their motives on immigration are totally malevolent. They would prefer to not debate at all. No which lie they trot out for why the oppose the wall–“It’s Immoral” or “It won’t work” or “We already have a secure border–they can never publicly say the real reason: “We want to demographically transform this country by importing foreigners who will vote almost exclusively for us, and to secure cheap labor for our big business allies.”

Pelosi, of course, trotted out a bunch of bullshit to pretend she’s not simply trying to deny Trump a platform to speak:

In her letter to the president, Pelosi cited security concerns and the need for proper protection at events such as the State of the Union to ensure the “continuation of government.”

But senior Homeland Security officials fired back, saying that despite the fact that their personnel have not been paid, they have been preparing for months for the State of the Union event.

“We are ready,” one official told Fox News Wednesday. “Despite the fact members of the Secret Service are not being paid, the protective mission has not changed.”

Security will be just fine. Capitol Hill is right down the street from the White House; it’s not far at all.

I was listening to Dan Bongino’s podcast yesterday (highly recommended by the way, he’s the man) and Bongino, who is ex-Secret Service, said there is not one iota of truth to Pelosi’s claims. The Secret Service is more than capable of handling security for the State of the Union, with or without a government shutdown.

After all, Trump has been just fine the past 27 days despite the shutdown.

Rand Paul, however, has a suggestion: just hold the SOTU in the Senate chamber if Pelosi won’t allow it in the House chamber.

If, as Pelosi says, the date of the SOTU is “not sacred,” then neither is the venue, no?

The Senate chamber is smaller than the House chamber (100 Senators vs. 435 Representatives) but it would look largely the same to a television audience. Trump certainly has this option on the table.

But because we have a fighter in the White House, President Trump didn’t just try to make do with the hand Pelsoi dealt him.

He went on the offensive: using Pelsoi’s own logic that with the government shut down it’s far too dangerous for high-ranking government officials to travel, Trump sent the following letter:

“Dear Madame Speaker:

Due to the Shutdown, I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt and Afghanistan has been postponed. We will reschedule this seven-day excursion when the Shutdown is over. In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate. I also feel that, during this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown. Obviously, if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative.”

Isn’t it awesome to finally have a Republican who’s not a whimpering pussy?

Rush was loving it:

erawetertrte.PNG

I can’t wait for all the Principled Conservatives to erupt in anger at Trump’s move while mostly ignoring Pelosi’s.

Never forget that the only actual “principle” they have is a visceral, personal hatred of the President. That’s it.

Speaking of which, Ben Shapiro, predictably opposes Trump’s move, because why actually fight back when #Facts and #Logic will suffice?

Because pointing out that leftists are lying totally works!

Ace of Spades:

“The cucks always support some alternate plan that is not actually on the table, and are always against the plan that is on the table.

Hey Ben, why don’t you challenge her to a debate? That always works. You always bring home massive W’s when you challenge people to debates on Twitter.”

This is why, ultimately, Ben Shapiro is not on our side.

More Ace:

“I can’t wait to hear the wailing from the cucks. The screeching that by treating Nancy Pelosi to the exact same level of contempt she’s shown to him he has “violated sacred norms” that require “men” to behave like sissies.”

And of course the lying propagandists of the Ministry of Truth have gone into full lying propagandist mode. Fake Jake Tapper of CNN insinuated that Trump is basically trying to get Nancy Pelsoi killed:

Hey, Fake Jake: suck one. You are the Enemy of the People.

As I was saying the other day, Trump’s instincts are almost always correct, and his instincts are spot-on here: shove it right back in the Democrats’ faces.

Keep the pressure on them: don’t stop until we get a wall.

Lindsey Graham GETS IT

Nuff said:

That’s really the bottom line: the Democrats are not negotiating in good faith.

That’s it. Forget ’em.

Build the wall in a state of emergency.

It is a national security matter of the highest priority.

It’s sure as hell a greater priority than all the foreign wars we got ourselves into in the name of “national security” over the last few decades.

The most important thing about Graham saying this is that the Congressional GOP appears to be on board with building the wall by any means necessary, or at least getting there. Trump needs their support to do this: because the Dems are going to go ballistic, he needs to have the Republicans backing him.

This truly is a bit of a surprise because until Graham said this I, and I’m sure most of you, basically wrote off most Hill Republicans as secretly open borders on behalf of their Super Important Corporate Donors. I figured Trump would have to either go it alone or seriously twist their arms to get them to support the wall.

But I think it might just be dawning on the Republican Party that it has literally no national future if we don’t get the border under control.

As hard as it may be to believe in 2019, California was once a solidly Republican state for decades, voting for the Republican presidential candidate in every election but one from 1948-1988. But since 1992, it has gone Democratic–more and more so with each passing election–every for years, a streak of six straight elections. The state is almost unanimously Democrat at every office from Governor down to dogcatcher and the legislature has Democratic supermajorities in both chambers.

This is virtually all because of immigration.

And if we don’t get a handle on it soon, eventually the whole country will be as blue as California.