☕️ MEXICAN STANDOFFS ☙ Friday, January 26, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

In today's special edition, we tackle the thorniest border problem of all. Plus a multiplier and some great election news.

Good morning, C&C, it’s finally Friday! Or, it’s already Friday. As we close out the tumultuous month of January, today’s roundup focuses on the most intractable and important question posed by C&C readers: what on Earth is the border invasion really about? Plus some great elections news from Georgia. Plus, our very first Multiplier of 2024, which you’re going to love.

🗞 THE C&C ARMY POST 🗞

🪖 OPERATION MULTIPLIER: Yesterday we reported on the outrage-inducing case of Jeanette Breen, the midwife who, instead of getting a promotion and a big bonus, is now being criminally fined for not giving children and infants vaccines but giving them holistic remedies instead. She might also have faked a few vaccine records, like around 1,500 of them, but let us not pick at the threads. A Daily Mail headline from this week, just to remind you:

As far as I can tell, Jeanette thinks natural remedies are just as good as, if not better than, big pharma injections. So she gave her kids tea tree oil or magnet bracelets or whatever and sent in forms to the state of New York confirming her patients had been “vaccinated.” All her parents knew exactly what was going on.

Put plainly, Jeanette helped thousands of parents avoid vaccinating their kids, so New York has fined her enough to put her out of midwifing for good. Fortunately for her — but not her parents — Jeanette is close to retirement anyway.

Today we will show the Establishment they can tear down quiet heroes like Jeanette but we will build them right back up again. The C&C Army has enjoyed some well-deserved R&R for a month or two but it’s time to get back on the front lines. Today, we will all work together to effortlessly send a message to all the deranged lunatics clamoring for this brave midwife’s punishment. If you’re a new reader, here’s how it works: click this link and donate any affordable amount (however small) so long as it ends in a $2, like $2, $12, $22, $222, and so forth.

(This is a GiveSendGo platform, so the minimum donation ending in a $2 is $12. If you can’t easily afford $12, sit this one out.)

It takes less than a minute to pitch in. So please do it right now and then read today’s post. Here’s the link again. Go ahead and knock it out, you will feel great about it. And leave an encouraging message to Jeanette while you’re at it.

It works because everyone helps. Even you. Working together, each chipping in a little bit, we wield the power of an Army. You’ll see!

🗞💬 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 💬🗞

The most common questions C&C gets these days are about the border.  What is the democrats’ real plan for allowing massive illegal migration to happen? People can’t seem to understand, Why would they do it? Today I will answer that question, a question completely ignored by corporate media, and my proposed answer is far bigger than you think.

Let’s check in with Texas first.

🔥 According to the so-called Public Broadcasting System (PBS), which these days is obsessed with American’s bathroom habits and wastewater testing — according to the state-run media outlet there is a terrifying standoff on the Mexican border — you might even call it a Mexican Standoff — as Governor Abbott obstinately defies the Supreme Court:

That’s what PBS’s viewers are getting. Or you could also roll over to Fox News for a completely different take. Fox’s experts agree Texas is doing exactly the right thing:

Fox’s experts agree with my analysis of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision, which is that the Justices did not order Texas to do or not do anything. This is a fine distinction lost, apparently, on PBS’s reporters, who will probably soon be replaced by A.I. anyhow. To prepare you for the cognitive mush being cooked up for you by corporate media, here are the two arguments PBS’s expert, Stephen Vladeck, a UT law professor, made about the Constitutional issues and Governor Abbott’s declaration of invasion.

As I predicted, they intend to quibble over the definition of “invasion.” To Professor Vladeck, it’s obvious:

I mean, the first is that, obviously, an influx of asylum seekers, however many we're talking about, is not what the founders had in mind when they used the word invasion.

Obviously. But is it obvious, professor, that an army of asylum seekers is not what the founders had in mind? Here’s Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “invasion:”

Next, the professor seemed to backtrack a little, generously allowing that not everyone might agree with his emaciated definition of “invasion” (he never actually defined the term himself), and unmasked his second argument, which is that it is simply preposterous to allow States to decide for themselves when they are getting invaded. How would they know? They should have to ask DC whether they are being invaded or not:

But, Laura, second, even if you're not persuaded by that, the clause Governor Abbott's relying on in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution was dealing with the specific scenario of the ability of states to respond to invasions until federal authorities were able to respond.

There's no support in our history, there's no support in founding or other materials for the idea that states can decide for themselves that they're under invasion, and, even if the federal government disagrees, that somehow it's the state's determination that would control.

Ah, but the professor conveniently forget basic Constitutional law. The Constitution is a designed to limit federal authority, not the States. In fact, the underused 10th Amendment expressly says when the Constitution is silent, we defer to States’ rights, we don’t search around in “founding or other materials for ideas.” The 10th Amendment is one plain sentence:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So. If I weren’t so busy, I’d apply for a job teaching law at the University of Texas. Apparently they take anybody.

I jest. I will charitably assume Professor Vladeck knows better than this political pabulum and was surprised during his morning calisthenics by the reporter’s phone call and didn’t really think it all through. But it does makes one wonder: why are democrats are so determined to allow the country to be swamped with refugees; what’s really going on?

25 states have signed a letter pledging to support Texas.

Is it so-called Replacement Theory? Are blue states trying to compensate for shrinking congressional seats due to their citizens’ flight from their loathsome pandemic policies? Or is there a deep-state scheme to take permanent control of Congress in the next census, since illegals now count in congressional allocations and they always head for blue states were benefits are better?

I believe the answer is much, much bigger and more obvious than any of these theories.

🔥 Look, I get it. It is sorely tempting to see domestic politics in play, even though many democrats — New York Mayor Eric Adams comes to mind — are off the party’s immigration plantation. But there is one nagging fact that keeps destroying the domestic model. The same kind of invasion — and even the same kind of pro-immigrant resistance from the courts — is happening all over the West.

The headlines from Great Britain are packed with immigrant problems:

Similar to what’s happening here, France’s supreme court also just shot down a new law designed to stop overwhelming immigration. Headline from yesterday:

In Germany, riots and protests are somehow organizing to oppose proposals for mass deportation of that country’s illegal immigrants, headline from this past Saturday:

In fact, the entire European Union is awash in mostly muslim migrants. It’s so bad that if you open a box of European Cracker Jacks you expect to find an illegal immigrant looking up from the bottom. In nearly every EU country, mass migration is a touchstone topic. The only two holdouts are Hungary and Poland, and Poland is wavering.

It is rational to assume that, if the migration crisis were a truly global phenomenon, first-world countries with the longest land borders would be the ones hardest hit by illegal immigration. So let’s look at the top three countries with the longest land borders. They are: China, Russia, and the United States. But the U.S. doesn’t count, since it is categorically different.

China’s unguardable land borders extend for a massive 14,000 miles between China and fourteen other countries. Russia’s wide-open land borders stretch for about 12,500 miles between it and sixteen other countries. Coming in a distant third, the U.S. has only two borders, between “allies” Mexico and Canada, which added together only total about 7,500 miles.

Great Britain – also suffering catastrophic levels of immigration — has zero land border and borders no countries. It’s an island. Crossing the English Channel is way more dangerous than crossing a slow-moving part of the Rio Grande (no offense, Texans). So the answer can’t be about where it’s easiest or cheapest or safest for migrants to go.

It’s a thirty-foot swim across the river at Eagle Pass. But it’s 21 miles across the English Channel.

Maybe we could find some clues about what’s going on with this worldwide migrant problem by looking at where in the first world there aren’t any migrant problems. Is there anywhere it isn’t happening?

Yes. The migrants aren’t a problem for the West’s enemies. Take Russia. It has no immigration problem despite having one of the longest land borders in the world. Another clue is some military analysts have long argued Russia is weaponizing migration against its enemies. For example, here’s a November headline from West Point’s military magazine, Modern War Institute:

You can search in vain for any reports about migration problems in Russia. Similarly, China has no illegal immigration problem despite its massive land border. Like Russia, China appears to be strategically exporting migrants. Headline from Reuters, last April:

Weird, I heard somewhere that China controls its citizens’ access to social media. And I’m still waiting for someone to explain how it makes any sense for Chinese people to enter the U.S. through Mexico in a perilous, cross-continental border crossing. Not to mention that the Chinese apparently have apps to help them do cross. Chinese folks have to work pretty hard to get here, too. Here’s an interview quote from the Reuters article of an illegal Chinese migrant at the U.S. border:

“I go to Hong Kong from Hubai first, then to Thailand from Hong Kong by plane, then Turkey from Thailand by plane, then Ecuador and up through South America to America here,” the Chinese migrant said.

It’s not just a handful of Chinese, either. According to Reuters, “Chinese people were the fastest growing demographic in those six months” following October 2022. While I’m waiting for an explanation for where all these wealthy Chinese migrants get the money to fund all this travel, and how they got all their money out of China, I’d also like to know why China can’t seem to shut this down?

We all know the answer, which is that China can shut this down in two seconds whenever it wants.  Clearly though, China does not want to shut it down.

You can see where I am going with this. My working hypothesis is that Russia and China have deployed a vast, migrant-based attack against the entire West. For the theory to be correct, China and Russia would need to have co-opted the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and many judges and politicians in the West, maybe through a blackmail system of some kind. In America, our enemies — especially China — would have had to co-opt the Biden Administration somehow.

Let’s conduct a quick thought experiment. How about, instead of bussing them to Martha’s Vineyard, why don’t we ship the migrants to Russia and China? Think about that for a second. It would be impossible.

You can argue that Russia and China have better immigration controls, notwithstanding their massive border problem. But that only proves policy solutions are practical and effective. Why have no Western countries adopted similar policies?

This is only a theory; a working hypothesis. But I am not aware of any better explanation anywhere. I am not making this up, if you try to find an explanation for why the entire West is suffering from illegal immigration all at the same time you will run smack dab into a bunch of silly hand waving about climate change, which still fails to explain Russia and China.

Nor can I think of any reason why assuming my hypothesis is true and responding accordingly would hurt anything.

You wanted an explanation, there it is. I’m open to alternative theories that account for all the facts. But I think this theory provides the only framework to fix the problem. Our non-coopted elected officials need to start acting like the border invasion is coordinated enemy activity with aid from internal enemies.

If you agree, and struggle to know what to do, you could forward today’s post to every elected official you know.

🔥 I’m not leaving you there! The AP ran an wonderfully-encouraging story this week confusingly headlined, “Georgia secretary of state says it's unconstitutional for board to oversee him, but lawmakers differ.”

This week, Georgia lawmakers advanced a controversial but terrific bill to yank Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger off the State Election Board and investigate his conduct during the last two elections for potential election law violations.  The only corporate media coverage of this important story was this silly and virtually illegible AP headline. The article isn’t much better. You have to read the bill for yourself if you want to figure out what exactly is going on.

Raffensperger, the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia, has been smack dab in the center of controversy since the 2020 elections. He infamously refused to support President Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud in Georgia. And he is expected to testify against Trump about asking Raffensperger to "find" votes to overturn the election results in a now-infamous phone call.

But the real story is, of course, much bigger than the AP’s loony focus on the Trump-Raffensberger dustup. The Georgia bill would not only authorize Georgia’s Elections Board to investigate Raffensberger, it would also give the board independent authority to investigate local officials, which is far more significant and pregnant with possibilities than even the prospect of investigating the disgraced Secretary of State. The bill would add the underlined text:

In other words this bill would give the mostly-toothless Georgia Elections Board some real teeth. It’s progress, and Georgia C&Cers — you know what to do.

Have a fabulous Friday! For our slowpokes: here’s the link to donate to Jeanette Breen this morning.This is your last snooze! There’s no more snoozes! See you tomorrow for lots more.

We can’t do it without you. Consider joining with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds.  I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can:  ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com