ARMED MILITIA TO MEET MILITARY AT BORDER AS INVASION SNAKES NORTH

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:

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?