Monday, October 22, 2018

Pre-Election Theater: The Caravan

It should be obvious by now that the migrant caravan coming up from Honduras was carefully set up to embarrass Trump, just as the election -- starting with the early/mail-in ballots -- is beginning.  Who did the manipulating is pretty obvious too.  There are small videos -- plainly taken with personal cell-phones, and therefore unverifiable, but telling -- which show what appear to be well-dressed Honduran agents paying lots of not-so-well-dressed Honduran young men to get on the trucks and join the "caravan".  The interesting part of the videos, and of professional news-media videos too, is that the overwhelming majority of those "migrants" are military-age men.  If, as the migrants claim, they're fleeing from violence at home, then where are the women, children, and old people?  Yes, the DNC does have enough supporters with very deep pockets to outright hire some 7000 men to march all the way through Mexico to assault the US border.  After all, a similar invasion a few months back gave the Democrats and the media lots of shame-shame fodder to use against Trump and, by extension, the entire GOP.  Other than that, the welcome the first "asylum invasion" got actually did discourage real illegal immigrants from jumping the border for several months.  This caravan is a clear political set-up.  The number of American pro-immigrant Leftist demonstrators who have gone down to Mexico precisely in order to join the caravan is pretty clear proof of that.

As the target of this campaign, with this little time left, just what can Trump -- or any of the US govt. do?

Well, he has already tried getting the Mexican govt. to stop the invasion, but Mexico had been notoriously bad about that, and the caravan is making its way across Mexico without much interference.  He's likewise threatened to cut off the foreign-aid funds to Honduras, Guatemala and every other country involved, and while this will hurt their pockets next year, it isn't doing much right now.

So he's promising to call up the US military, and the Democrats are already howling "unconstitutional!" -- which is ironic coming from them. 

But is it really unconstitutional to call up the army to stop an invasion?  Invasion is exactly what this is.   

Note that the Mexican, Honduran and Guatemalan police that have made some effort to stop the caravan claim to have caught some "middle-eastern" members of the so-called Honduran group, which is excuse enough.  The US is, after all, fighting Jihadists in the middle-east.  That makes illegal and covert "middle-eastern" border-jumpers agents of an enemy power in war-time. 

That's excuse enough.

So, regardless of how the media will slant and howl, the best thing those US troops can do is wait at the border, catch everyone who tries to sneak across, and round them up.  They can do it with non-lethal weapons such as stunners or gas.  Round up the whole 7000+ of them, shove them in planes and carry them off to....  Where?

Well, both Peru and Argentina have shown willingness to take them in, and they can be paid off to do it with the foreign-aid money that used to go to Honduras,  El Salvador, Mexico, et al.  When the assorted Left bawls about a "humanitarian crisis", point out -- loudly -- that transporting the illegals to someplace that's willing to take them in is a damned sight more "humanitarian" than shooting the invaders outright.  Above all, keep on calling them invaders!

Sure, sure, they insist that they're only coming here to get safety, work, and "a better life for themselves".  Well, all invaders are trying to get a better life for themselves!  The Mongol hordes who swept into China, leaving pyramids of skulls in their wake, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  The original Spanish Conquistadors who marched into Central and South America, slaughtering the Indians as they went, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  The Nazis who rolled into Poland in 1939, thus setting off World War Two, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  Nobody makes the effort to invade someone else's land to get a worse life for themselves! 

Yes, this is an invasion --- part of an invasion that's been going on for a long time -- and we should call it by its rightful name.  Being honest about the situation should win Trump a few brownie-points in the election at least.

--Leslie <;)))><   


Paradoctor said...

THIS is EXACTLY why I made a point of voting early, by mail; to blow off any October Surprises. I have zero interest in participating in a fake argument like this. Whatever conclusions you come to about the caravan will be negated and/or fade away as of November 7. Since my vote can't be influenced - I've already cast it - I get to ignore panics-du-jour like this. What a relief!

Leslie Fish said...

Heheheheheh. I *always* vote mail-in, and early. Mail-in ballots are also much harder to cheat with, since in order to lose the ballots a political hack would have to get the collusion of the US Postal Service and all its managers and employees -- millions of them -- and that, as Mary C. can tell you, would not be easy.

As for the whole "immigration crisis"/invasion problem, the answer is a *ten year moratorium on ALL immigration to the US". People who are already in the pipeline applying for citizenship can stay, but everyone else gets stopped at the border, Wall or no Wall. As for everybody claiming the "asylum" excuse, let's give them nice compassionate plane tickets to whoever will take them in -- and that's Argentina and Peru right now.

With the third-largest population in the world right now -- 327 million, officially -- the US does *not* need any more population.

Alchemy said...

The Caravan won't entirely just fade away Nov 7th. It would be similar to the first caravan that came, after nov 7th there will be all the "OMG! Trump is Separating families again!" kind of crap. And then another one will come. And another. And another. They'll begin coming faster and faster depending on how they're handled.

Course I don't know the solution for it, cause you can't just shoot them. The Media would have a hay day with that, and everyone would turn their guns onto the US for breaking the Geneva convention. Letting them in also isn't an option, cause that would just fuel the fires for more to come.

I just know though, its completely unfair to people who are going through the proper legal channels to migrate into the country.

Besides that, I thought according to the leftists out there, that America is a totally horrible place that was never great and everyone who isn't a rich white old male is living in constant fear that Trump is going to have jackboots kick open their door and start gunning them down. Why would coming to such a nightmare be a "better life"

jdgalt said...

I don't think that Trump will embarrass himself at all as a result of the Caravan. I predict the army will treat this as a golden opportunity to try out their new toy, ADS, on a really large crowd, probably within a few feet of the border. If it works, they all turn back. If it doesn't, the troops bring up fire trucks and start hosing the crowd, and they all turn back anyway. In either case, Trump totally avoids looking like a brute as well as being a hero to his core voters, who don't want those people to cross the border.

In either case we then find out just how long Mexico will allow them to stay within its borders. (The organizers presumably didn't plan for logistics to feed them on the return trip. There will also likely be follow-up prosecutions: some of the food the caravaners are being given is in bags labeled USAID, meaning some disloyal bureaucrat is using our tax funds for this.)

jdgalt said...

Oh, and as for vote-by-mail: it has and will be gamed heavily, not by diverting or changing your genuine vote but by registering people who shouldn't (or won't bother to) vote and then sending in ballots in their names.

Technomad said...

Argentina and Chile both want Tierra del Fuego populated. Load them into old rustbucket freighters that have maybe one more voyage left in them, and ship 'em on down, making sure to disable the ships to ensure that they stay put. Win-win. And Tierra del Fuego's even Spanish-speaking, so they should have no trouble at all.

Paradoctor said...

The law says that if they appear at a port of entry and apply for asylum, then they are to be vetted and let in. This has been law for awhile.

Near-violence will not deter those fleeing for their lives. Only real violence would work. Machine-gunning women and infants; that sort of thing. After all, that's what they're fleeing from.

Real violence would indeed be bad optics; and by the way, it would also be an evil deed, meriting condemnation and bearing terrible consequences. Oh, am I sounding judgemental?

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, JD. Yes, that's the old Chicago Democrat tactic. I haven't lived in Chicago for more than 30 years, but I'm still voting there.

Hi, Nat. Given that some of those refugees *are* Jihadis, whom we're at war with, they don't legally get "asylum". And the migrants themselves have admitted -- to reporters, yet -- that their real motive for coming here is the money. Their claim for "asylum" is denied. The "real" violence today includes some amazingly effective non-lethal weapons. And after the first pass with the stunners reveals that the women and infants and pitiful-looking people are a smokescreen/shield for a horde of healthy young military-age men, there go the "optics". The pitiful-looking smokescreen people will get hauled off to one side for more detailed questioning, and possible asylum if they merit it, while the rest of the horde get handcuffed and hauled off to the transport-planes. The transport-planes go soaring off south, to Argentina, Peru and Chile, and perhaps ultimately to settlements in Tierra del Fuego. Argentina, Peru and Chile get the US's blessing to use whatever means they see fit to smash the drug-lords from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador who caused the mess in the first place -- not to mention any Jihadis -- who might come looking for those refugees. Argentina, Peru and Chile get the US foreign-aid money that used to go to Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico. The Mexico/US trade deal gets scrapped, and The Wall goes up. Mexico does indeed wind up paying for The Wall, but not as anyone expected.

Paradoctor said...

You make an intricate prediction, but it is very difficult to make good predictions, especially about the future.

Here is one of mine:

Those experimental crowd-control weapons are probably hyped. They will either be too effective, causing bad-optics casualties (and by the way being evil), or people will develop countermeasures. And if they work on migrants, then rest assured that the State will next use them on citizens. So for our own sake, let's hope they fail.

Paradoctor said...

Hey, ya want terrorists? Well forget the imaginary caravan jihadis; we got ourselves a serial mail bomber. Targeting Soros, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, some congresswomen, and CNN. An enterprising lad, I guess; very thorough.

Hey, after you put together your first terrorist gadget, why it so much easier to make the second, and the third, and four through seven. (Well, eight; Maxine Waters got two.) Means become ends in themselves.

Naturally the rightwing projected like an IMAX, so they said it was a left-wing terrorist plot. They said that because they were looking in the mirror at the time, so they got left and right reversed.

jdgalt said...

@Paradoctor: The law covering ports-of-entry doesn't apply if the President closes the border, as he says he will.

Besides, it's obvious to everybody that the people in the caravan are not refugees at all -- there is no evidence any were threatened while in Honduras, and in fact, most of them were paid -- and even if they were refugees, the UN requires they settle in the first safe country they reached (which has to be Mexico or earlier).

And it is the left who project.

As for the so-called bombs, they're both phony (no detonators) and an obvious false flag (no postmarks, therefore hand delivered).