U.S. and the World are still reeling from the effects of living in a
post-911 society. At the height of America's prosperity, at the moment that
the U.S. was at a new peak in greatness, some group or groups attacked the
World Trade Center. Since that time, Americans have become the equivalent
of a veteran of war who instinctively falls to the ground from the POP! of a
backfiring car. The World, too, is angered that the Giant would attack Iraq
for what so far points to a Saudi Arabian job. While Michael Moore's movie,
Fahrenheit 911, was full of spin, one assertion is undeniable: the
House of Bush and the House of Saud are more than just partners, maybe more
than simply friends. Fear is the undercurrent. Americans fear Muslims.
Muslims fear Zionists. Europe fears the American/Muslim conflict. As
insurgents slowly rip away at the grunt-fabric of the U.S. military, and as
America continues to bomb anything that moves, and as Europe cringes with
each punch and counterpunch, the U.S. Government is quietly legislating the
destruction of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the very essence of
our diverse, conflicted, yet victorious in the face of dire odds, country.
The final piece of the puzzle will be exactly what we ask for. In the end,
the U.S. will shut her borders, not from immigrants and diplomats, but from
its own citizenry leaving to a freer outside.
About a year ago, this author was
ranting to my Father about how the surveillance cameras were watching us,
but the borders remained open. My Dad looked at me very carefully and said,
"Son, don't ask for that. If they can't get in, we can't get out. Mexico
ain't that bad."
1996 and 2000 Libertarian
Presidential candidate Harry Browne admitted for us in his book,
The Great Libertarian Offer: "We
can argue about open borders vs. closed border. But the
is America's borders are open and they will remain that way; no matter who
is in the White House or Congress. That is because government is no more
capable of keeping immigrants out of America than it is of keeping drugs
out." Written in 2000, this still holds true. Writing specifically about
President Bush's border policy, extreme conservative talk show hot, Laura
Ingraham, in an article called "Does Bush Policy Border On Insanity?" wrote:
"When Bill Clinton says we live in an 'increasingly borderless world,' we"re
not surprised. But, when a Republican president advocates a policy that will
make our borders effectively meaningless, we should be outraged."
The conservatives are walking
right into a trap. First the U.S. will get the police-state legislation.
Second, as a reward for not revolting, the government will close our borders
(after millions are made legal citizens.) The last phase will be to use the
tyrannical Intelligence Reform Act, Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, and FEMA
bills to totally enslave us. With the borders closed down by troops, tanks,
and technology just like we asked for, we will have nowhere to run, nowhere
In 1946 Winston Churchill coined
the phrase Iron Curtain. Shannon Duffy, PhD, defines it bluntly. From her
essay, 'The End of the Cold War: The Soviet Bloc': "The Communist bloc
countries were run with closed borders (no one was allowed to leave or enter
without governmental approval)." In 1952, President Truman approved $4.3
million to aid refugees escaping from behind the Iron Curtain. If the
United States closes its borders, will there be a country to aid us in
escaping? Bush took care of that with Iraq. Now the world holds animosity
The newest cattle call for closing
our borders is coming from an Asian-American woman, author Michelle Malkin.
Her books title says it all:
Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other
Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. She makes such a great case for
shutting the borders down that her arguments are being supported and
endorsed by none other than The National Alliance, the White Supremacy group
that gave us the terrorist handbook, The Turner Diaries.
Two things must be proven before
citizens should ask for closed borders. One, it must be proven that such a
measure, which will surely strip us of some freedoms, will have an equal or
greater increase in real, tangible security. Two, we must find protections
for free travel outside and back into the country. Controlling travel is a
plank of the Communist Manifesto. Hmm. Even if these things could be done,
and they can't, we must admit one simple fact. To adopt closed borders, we
must refute our American Heritage. Because, if we are willing to sacrifice
the promise of comfort for the weary, then we are no longer what we once
were, and in such an America our forefathers would not have been allowed
The Intelligence Reform Bill just
swept through the House and Senate. World Net Daily stated that while the
bill did force federal mandates on the admission of driver's licenses to
a provision 'barring States from issuing driver's licenses to illegal
aliens' was intentionally not included. That was from a 2004 article
entitled, 'Intel Bill to Install Internal Passport? Congressman: Driver's
license provision initiates plan - not proper in a free society. One guess
which Congressman that was. If you said Ron Paul, you'd be correct. In his
own personal press release, after voting 'nay' to the bill with a minority
of 75, Paul wrote: "Those who are willing to allow the government to
establish a Soviet-style passport system because they think it will make us
safer are terribly mistaken."
Yet, the passports have passed,
and we will comply again. What can one do? Quit driving? The borders,
however, are still wide open.
This is the building of an
insidious Hegelian Dialectic.
Problem: Terrorists, criminals, and
immigrants (oh, my) are flooding into the country. We are losing jobs,
being victimized, and will ultimately be hit by a weapon of mass
Reaction: First we want to give power
to a gargantuan police state to protect us. When that doesn't help, we want
to centralize the intelligence agencies (which have been the main drug
kingpins and mind control agents). We want walking papers so the cops can
check all citizens who venture outside their homes. Finally, we want the
borders shut down, now!
"OK. We'll shut the borders down for your protection. There will be no way
that people can get in (or out) unless we let them."
The problem with this is, by the
time they shut the borders, it may be too late get out. Forget making it to
the border. With Homeland Security, the cameras, the surveillance blimps,
the passports, the soon-to-be internal road checkpoints, and the tattletale
brigades, we won't get two blocks without our movements being monitored and
Let's take the first reason for
accepting such a closed environment. If we were to do this and the
government could make good on the promise of security; well, even then I
won't accept it. But, it is a tempting trade off. However, if we examine
the Soviet model, we see that terrorists were not stopped from entering the
country by the Iron Curtain. Terrorists were culled from natives, but so
were anti-Communist revolutionaries able to gain entrance into Mother
Russia. Follow the line further, and we see the final result: the Gulag
State. When Stalin was unable to stop the flow of dissidents from within
and without, he totally closed the border. When that didn't work, he used
Soviet Law to incarcerate millions and send them into the hellhole of the
The United States government has
used the 9-11 incident to implement security measures. These measures have
taken away several civil liberties, and worse, has taken away Natural
Rights. This will cause more dissension. The attack on Iraq is in process,
and future battles with Iran and Syria are already planned. This will cause
an influx of terrorists into America. We did, after, enter the Arabian
Peninsula BEFORE they ever attacked our shores. The government, the
terrorists, or the dissidents (in order of probability) are going to do
something big one day. At that time, the Federal Government (after millions
of terrorists, criminals, welfare-parasites, and fortunately some
well-intentioned immigrants have made it in) will close down the borders of
America, even while they erase them economically through the Free Trade Area
of the Americas.
By this time, there will probably
be a draft in place to fight Iran and Syria. Canada and the U.S. signed the
'Smart Border Declaration' in 2001, which will screen for draft dodgers.
Why did they do that if there is no draft, and no draft is planned? World
Net Daily reported in 2002 that, "A U.S. Border Patrol officer has
encountered four heavily-armed Mexican Army soldiers on the U.S. side of the
border." From a May 31, 2004 Border Trade Alliance report: "The Department
of Homeland Security plans "to permit the Customs service to capture
fingerprints and other profile information on hundreds of millions of people
who enter or leave the United States each year." Canada and Mexico are our
only contiguous land access. Perhaps NAFTA, which benefited Canada and
Mexico to the detriment of America, was a trade-off. Regardless, when the
time comes, our neighbors will be ready to staunch the flow as much as
possible. Canada and Mexico must do this or suffer sanctions.
Of course, it was Benny Franklin
that said, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Edmund Burke added, "The
never give up their liberties but under delusion." H.L. Mencken finds a
lowest denominator: "All government, of course, is against liberty."
From the left, we have almost the
same sentiment from the brightes, except that they suggest more immediacy.
Thoreau claimed, "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The
obedient must be slaves." Mikhail Bakunin's allegory relays what will
naturally come out of a police-state crackdown. Bakunin: "To revolt is a
natural tendency of life. Even a worm turns against the foot that crushes
it. In general, the vitality and relative dignity of the creature can be
measured by the intensity of its instinct to revolt." It was the completely
decadent, insanely genius William S. Burroughs who throws cold water on us
concerning guns (I have noticed an increase in gun-supporters amongst
leftists). Burroughs said, "After a shooting spree, they always want to
take guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't
want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are police and
the military." Finally, Hubert Humphrey, the president that could have
been, sums all this freedom and police talk up very nicely. "There are not
enough jails, not enough police, not enough courts to enforce a law not
supported by the people."
We support laws that are being
used to track and trace every facet of our lives. Yet, the Federal
Government is allowing millions of illegal aliens into the country every
year, with almost no move to stop it in decades. Bush has proposed amnesty
for these illegals. When the slave-labor supply is at maximum capacity, and
the terrorist cells and CIA front-groups have slipped through, the Fed will
comply with our wishes. All along we have been begging for a closed border.
Appearing to give us what we want, the New American Gulag will then begin.
The Libertarian Party has been
admonished by members of the Constitution Party, Republican Party, and
others for a certain platform stance. Immigration. The LP's platform
states the following: "America has always been a nation of immigrants! We
condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the
United States! Such Orwellian nightmares (liberty infringements) have no
place in a free society, but are the natural outgrowth of an obsession with
Let us all step back. With 100%
closed borders will the government 100% prevent a terrorist attack? No.
While most people acknowledge that there need be a system to restrict
terrorists and criminals from entering the country, there used to be a day,
maybe not so long ago, when Americans would have taken it upon themselves to
protect themselves, their families, their communities. If we demand that
the borders stay open, and also require that we be allowed proper weaponry
for war, we might live up to the demand of that responsibility. This is a
war. The jury is still out to many as to whether it is against the police
state or the Islamic Terrorists. Either way, it ultimately will be up to us
to defend the Homeland from enemies, both foreign and domestic.