Al's Views, Personal Thoughts


THERE CAN BE NO BORDERS IN
A TRULY GLOBALIZED SOCIETY

20 February 2003

By Al Colombo, publisher
www.GiantKillers.Org

"The new Ashcroft proposal threatens to fundamentally alter the Constitutional protections that allow us to be both safe and free," said Timothy H. Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "If it becomes law, it will encourage police spying on political and religious activities, allow the government to wiretap without going to court and dramatically expand the death penalty under an overbroad definition of terrorism."
TOP SECRET BILL TO TURN U.S. GOVT. INTO TYRANNY
INFORMATION TIMES: www.InformationTimes.com

Since the September 11th, 2001 World Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon tragedy, it has become painfully obvious that something is wrong in the world. A nation must maintain some degree of control over the goings on within its own borders. That something must include policies and practices used in part by Uncle in the commission of foreign policy. Unfortunately, the monkey is out of the bag and Uncle is not entirely willing to do whatever is necessary to stop the problem at the borders of this country. If Uncle was to do so, this would mean negating the global agenda that is afoot, for in order to have a truly globalized society, there can not be countrylines (borders). It is as simple as that.

Brewing under the surface of society is the notion that there should be no national borders. This effort essentially translates into the further subversion of America, opening her to further terrorism. Perhaps her enemies have finally found a way to take the most powerful country on the face of the Earth and reduce her to a mere memory. If there were ever a way to do that, an open-border policy is surely it.

Just how far will the enemies of the United States (U.S.) go to bring her to her knees? Certainly they have worked the system, prodding her citizens into believing that open-borders will bring greater propriety and diversity to the table. The enemy has also worked the system, mounting a huge effort to lobby Congress to legislate laws that will, in the long term, lead to an open-border environment.

Examples of recent legal effort includes such laws as was recently signed into law by President Bush on Thanksgiving Eve that allows Mexican trucks (and their drivers) to freely enter the U.S. interior with little or no oversight. Another example is this administration’s effort to grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, allowing them to remain in the U.S. An oncoming example is that of the Mexican government in their effort to force the U.S. to merge the U.S. Social Security System with their own.

Where do they hang their hat on all of these issues? On the fact that there is so much illegal traffic into and from the U.S. anyway. The solution, say those who advocate open borders, is to allow Mexicans to freely enter and leave the U.S. at will. As the Communists once said on Radio Moscow and Radio Havana Cuba, "Resistance is futile." If we were to think in those terms in this area we would simply put our Coast Guard in mothballs, as well as the Air National Guard and Army National Guard. After all, we’re all globally good friends now, right?

Instead, we're going to send them all abroad to enforce global policy in other countries, all the while foreign troops will be used in the United States to do the same. Why? Because through the Combat Arms Survey, it was clearly established that our own troops would, by and large, fail to enforce global policy on their own fellow citizens. The powers that be also found that military with 15 years and over were too patriotic for their global purposes, thus the many downsizings and retirement buyouts (15 years and above). This is all part of the Global Agenda.

A Conspiracy?

If it were all that simple, it would be far easier for the average American to accept. However, the truth of the matter is, the notion of open borders, as well as the importation of European-style terrorism into the U.S. are two nearly equal planks by which the enemy plans to commandeer both economic and political control of the U.S. The fact is, their agenda does not just include the U.S., but all of planet Earth. America, however, is the odd man out with nationalism and patriotism which interferes with the overall plan.

"This week, when federal authorities arrested workers at Chicago’s O’Hare and Midway Airports for unlawfully possessing security badges, ‘open borders’ advocates were outraged because several of those apprehended were illegal immigrants," said Oliver North, author of Border Security – An Oxymoron, published 5 December, 2002.

What has even partially open, certainly porous borders really gained us here in the United States? If you ask Sam Francis, author of J’Accuse! – The Open Borders Lobby Are To Blame For Terrorism, the entire tragedy was created by those who lobby Congress for an "open border" policy.

"The 19 hijackers who seized American airplanes last week and flew them into history's biggest and bloodiest terrorist attack slipped across U.S. borders easily enough. The FBI's detention of some 75 others —some suspects, some only "material witnesses"—suggests that what may turn out to be a mammoth underground network of foreign terrorists, supporters, and collaborators may already exist in this country."

Looking back a few years, one of the most open proponents of an "open border" policy in North America was that of the Communist Party of the United States. It is very doubtful that this relatively small group of radical Leftists have a truly inventive bone in their bodies, which means they receive their marching orders from elsewhere.

I’ll bet you were not aware of that. Despite the fact that the Clinton administration told us repeatedly that Communism is dead, I can assure you that it’s alive and well right this very minute—certainly under a variety of other names and titles designed to take off the anticommunist heat. And yet it’s not just the communist party in the former U.S.S.R. or China that we need to consider as we look toward the source of our problems throughout the world. The fact is, there is a telling line between Communist China, Communist Russia, and those elitists who funded the Communist Revolution in the late 1800s through Lenin and Trotsky.

Signals Of An Agenda?

There are several signals out and about that government has provided by which you and I are able to discern the active work of those who advocate open borders. Possibly the most blatant and obvious is that of relations between the U.S. and Mexico. Specifically of concern is the issue of illegal aliens who come to this country to earn a living, sending a significant portion of their earnings back to family in their native country. The granting of Mexican trucks the privilege of freely moving into the interior of the U.S. without any significant oversight is probably one of the most revealing acts of recent years. Another is the issue of amnesty for all illegals currently working here.

Larger, more ominous signals have long been afoot, however. The United Nations (U.N.) is quite possibly one of the most significant signals out there. Not the original U.N. whose charter was to simply keep peace by negotiation and dialogue, but the newly reformed U.N., reformed in the latter 1990s during the Clinton years. This new U.N. has more teeth, both militarily and politically. By way of Agenda 21, proponents of the U.N. were masterfully able during the 1990s to institutionalize much of the precepts contained within Agenda 21 within each of the developed countries. The goal was to have completed this process by 1998. The document that outlined that goal was then removed from the U.N. gopher server on 1 January, 1999, which probably means that those behind this agenda were satisfied that they had successfully met the outlined goal of institutionalization among participating nation states.

Another signal to be realized is that of a global economy. The global economy, in and of itself, is key to the top agenda at hand, as devised and paid for by the global elite. The theory is by interweaving the economies of each nation together—by causing these economies to become interdependent upon one another—they hope to bring these nation states together under one political umbrella. All of this is designed to ever so slowly bring society to the point where it will accept a one-world-government body: the U.N., and an open-border policy enforced among all nations is simply one step among many by which they hope to bring their plan to fruition.

In closing, your acceptance of this plan for a one-world, global governmental body virtually hinges on the annexation of Mexico into the economic and political body of the United States of America. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) legally binds Americans to this overriding plan of a one-world governmental body by virtue of intertwined economies. If you need proof of this, take a long look at the newly formed European Union. What you will see is that, for the sake of each nation state’s economy, more so for the sake of the European Union body, individual nation states who have signed onto membership have been prevented from executing specific political and economic actions geared to benefit their own citizens. Once the EU body rules that a member state is forbidden to do a particular thing, that nation state must comply for face serious consequences.

Of course, the fight to create a European Union was long and hard, dating back more than a hundred years before its creation. And yet, despite the age of the fight, there were those who continued to carry the EU torch until it did, indeed, become a reality. No less determined are those who propose a New Order, where all nations are to become merely an extension of the single governmental body we now refer to as the United Nations. Decisions that impact you and your family are to be made from the hallowed halls of the United Nations, not your local village or city hall. Have you gotten the picture yet?

Slowly but surely, the American people have been nearly convinced that interdependency is a good thing. In years past, it was self sufficiency that reigned. Perhaps if there is a single issue that can be expressed concerning the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, this is it. Where the Dems believe in interdependency (one-world-government), the Republicans believe in self sufficiency (national government). To show you just how deep the indoctrination has gone, here is a quote from a speech given by Congressman Dennis Kucinich:

"With the understanding that there is a deeper truth expressed in the unity of the United States. That implicate in the union of our country is the union of all people. That all people are essentially one. That the world is interconnected not only on the material level of economics, trade, communication, and transportation, but innerconnected through human consciousness, through the human heart, through the heart of the world, through the simply expressed impulse and yearning to be and to breathe free. I offer this prayer for America" (A Prayer For America, given at the Americans for Democratic Action conference

For example, in what may very well be a landmark decision by Australia’s High Court, a businessman from the state of Victoria, Australia, will be able to sue Dow Jones’ news service for defamation of character in a news piece that appeared on the World Wide Web. The High Court did not consider for a moment the constitutional laws of the United States, but rather their own rules that allow such a suit simply by merit of a claim by Joseph Gutnick.

"Gutnick claimed that a 7,000-word article that had appeared in Barron’s in October 2000 portrayed him as a schemer given to stock scams, money laundering and fraud. The article was also published online," (Landmark Defamation Ruling Could Affect Net Publications, USA Today, 10 December, 2002).

The bad news here is that if Gutnick decides to sue, Dow Jones will have to defend their case in Victoria, Australia, not in the U.S. where the article was actually published. This clearly places a tremendous burden on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Of course, where a small publisher is involved, this burden could be even more serious than in the Dow Jones case. If successful, this could set a precedent that is almost sure to stifle free speech in the U.S. as well as other democratic countries that boast as having Free Speech, including the Internet.

Related Links On This Web Site

  • U.S. Sanctioned Disarmament In A Peaceful World?
  • Combat Arms Survey
  • Links To Docs and Stories on Communism and Socialism
  • Socialism To Communism?
  • Is America Menaced by Foreign Propaganda?
  • The Communist Manifesto; Preface to the English Edition
  • Why Should We Be Watchful of the Communist/Socialist Agenda?
  • Multiculturalism and Marxism; Year Ahead: The future of multiculturalism
  • The United Nations: An Ever Impinging Danger
  • We Will Bury You!
  • Free Men
  • Media Blacks Out The Facts
  • Environmental Concerns and Politics
  • U.S. BERETS SHOULD ONLY BE MADE IN AMERICA
  • The Circle of Strife
  • THE AMERICA YOU LOVE GET IT BACK - DO IT NOW
  • A Fly In The Ointment
  • RABBI ANTELMAN IS BACK
  • Risking It All On the Word Of A Mere 14 Percent?
  • BEFORE I SHORT CIRCUIT GIVE ME INPUT PLEASE
  • Media; Is There A Common Agenda?
  • Gun Shooting In German School

    -30-

    Send Mail
    Send Mail

    Past Editorials
    Information Resources
    Return to the Main Menu

    Copyright©2002
    Allan B. Colombo

    Thompson Promotions
    www.TPromo.com