Liberty or Laws - Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws?
Immigration or Invasion

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 23, 2014

The government and Mainstream Media tell us that there is a massive immigration going on at our southern border.  Massive, however, is, in any historical context outside of active warfare, a gross understatement.  Is it possible that what is happening at that southern border should be more appropriately described as an invasion?

First, we'll look at immigration.  It is defined as -- immigration n.  The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence.  (from Webster's 1828 Dictionary -- In the United States, it assumes compliance with 8 US Code §1101.)

There is no doubt that the United States is a nation formed from immigration, even though many of us have generations going back to prior to the Revolutionary War.  However, whether an immigrant, or one born here, the purpose is to become a citizen.  With citizenship, there must also be allegiance to the country.  Can it be expected that the country protects its citizens, yet the citizens have no allegiance to the country?

Theodore Roosevelt discussed A Problem that Can't be Ignored in explaining some of the requirements of citizenship, and solutions for those who did not seem to desire to assimilate (To bring to a likeness; to cause to resemble; To convert into a like.) into the host nation.  To assimilate into an industrious nation, one must work, participate, and contribute, to at least maintain the nature of the country, if not to improve it.

So, with the above given, are these multitudes crossing the border, intending to assimilate, or is their purpose otherwise?  Or, are they deceived into believing that there is one purpose, when, in fact, there is another purpose?  Let's look at what another possible, perhaps plausible, purpose might be.

First, let's, once again, look at history.  In 1775, some farmers and mechanics decided to take on the greatest military force in the world, the British Empire's army and navy.  The didn't hesitate, even though Hessians, vociferous fighters themselves, were added to His Majesty's forces.

The colonists, from the first battle, fought in what is now known as asymmetrical (having parts that fail to correspond to one another in shape, size, or arrangement; lacking symmetry) warfare.  They fought like Indians; they avoided a major battle, unless there was a hope of winning; the fled to fight another day; and, they conducted completely unanticipated actions.  They did so with financial aid from other countries, and, eventually, military and naval forces from France.

The story of the "Trojan Horse" is well known, so, perhaps we can learn something about asymmetrical warfare by reviewing what may have happened, or may merely be mythology.  The people of Troy were lovers of beauty.  When the Spartan army was unable to defeat them, they devised a means of playing on the weakness of beauty to gain access to the walled city of Troy.  The built a beautiful wooden horse, believed by the Trojans to be a token of homage paid by the defeated.  We all know what happened, next.  However, it was the weakness of the worship of beauty that led to the downfall of Troy.

The United States has a weakness, as well.  That weakness is the failure to grasp the nature and the severity of this threat, due to the constant barrage of misdirection and propaganda spewing from mainstream media acting as government proxies, disguising the problem as a “humanitarian crisis” and relying upon the world renowned generosity of the American people to “resolve” a crisis created, funded, and protected by the federal government.  The American people are being held hostage in a sense, by their moral principles of giving humanitarian aid whenever and wherever needed, without a firm foundation build upon full disclosure of the nature of the issue.  It is called "humanitarianism", and though our coffers are bare, we will spend our posterity's future in providing humanitarian aid.

Agencies of government are relying upon that moral mandate so well depended upon by the world at large, humanitarianism, to be the means by which this invasion can be facilitated, using children to force open the gates to this once fair country. ?  The outpouring of sympathy for the wretched children, being accompanied by parents  or sent unaccompanied through the most violent country in the Western Hemisphere, surely plays on the heartstrings of the humanitarian nature, especially when embellishment and omission, by press and government, divert our attention away from practical considerations while attempting to   smother us with our own ignorance of the facts, using the ploy of “humanitarianism.”

Meanwhile, while the attention is directed at the children (paraphrasing Hillary Clinton, "it takes a nation to raise a child"), some unconfirmed, yet quite plausible, reports of increased border crossings, at least in Arizona, perhaps 4 time previous numbers, have been occurring since the current "children's crusade" began.

Diversion is a masterful art of war.  Every effort was made, for two years, to convince the Germans that Calais was the point of invasion.  While the German High Command was so sure that they had good intelligence, their resources were directed to the wrong location.  This was a fatal error, as they were watching, and relying upon the left hand, while the right hand was ignored.

Now, an "invasion" was defined, in the time of the Framers (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) as:

A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force.

Well, it seems that the definition just about covers the current situation.  It is an entry into the possessions of Americans.  It is hostile, as so often displayed by MECHA, AZTLAN, and other groups supportive of the invasion -- and the rights of foreigners to our possessions and whatever plunder they can realize.  And, according to those same groups, conquest is clearly a part of their professed plan.

Now, let's look at weapons.  The Spartans had their spears and shields with them.  Surely, the Trojans would not have provided the means for arming other than those so designated.  However, if someone wants to buy a gun in this country, they only have to prove that they have no criminal record, in this country.  The sole exception being those veterans who have recently fought for this country and have been determined to be domestic terrorists, and those with mental disabilities.

If "Fast and Furious" had not been exposed, and cut short, how many weapons by those who were able to purchase huge numbers of weapons would have been acquired?  Could those weapons have been stockpiled for future use?   How many weapons were supplied to foreign entities before Fast and Furious came to light?

The Soviet Union, during the "Cold War", established arms caches throughout Europe and Great Britain (Soviet agents placed weapons caches across Europe during Cold War).  Wouldn't that be even more easily done in the United States, today?  Caches, ready to arm those soldiers who have come across the southern border, apparently peacefully, simply waiting for the call to arms -- to continue their invasion -- this time, from inside of the gates?

A final consideration, which weighs very heavily on the side of invasion, is the cost of 'immigration', under the current circumstances.  Reports indicate that the cost per person ranges from $5,000 to $50,000.  Those in the $5,000 class are from a country with an average household income of $2,000.  Who are those willing to pay $50,000 to sneak across the border?  Who has the economic resources to pay such prices?  It isn't the everyday person looking for a better life, most certainly.

This leaves us to contemplate  whether this is a massive immigration, which doesn't, at all, resemble normal immigration, at any time in our historical past, or an invasion, using the concepts of asymmetrical warfare described above.

If the former, then they, and our government, should be abiding by the laws.  If the latter, then we should be abiding by our rights.  The final questions, however, and the most important aspect of this entire debacle, are:

  • Should we prepare for the least offensive, or the most offensive of the possibilities?
  • If we prepare for the least offensive, will we be able to deal with the more offensive, if it is the case?
  • If we prepare for the most offensive, have we caused any harm by sending people back to where they came from, until they follow the law, and have we provided assurance that we are protecting the birthright of ourselves, and our posterity?
  • What are the consequences of the wrong decision?

This article can be found on line at Liberty or Laws? - Immigration or Invasion


Views: 18


You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service