Thread: Chuck Norris:Greatest Obstacle to Border Enforcement, Part 3

CHUCK NORRIS

Greatest obstacle to border enforcement , Part 3

Posted: May 31, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series on solutions to America's illegal immigration problem.)

There is one gigantic obstacle that stands before America and our immigration crisis. And, quite frankly, it is in my estimation an insurmountable roadblock that will inhibit any resolution that enforces current immigration law, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants. That barrier is not a people, policy or protocol. It is our president.

I seriously doubt that our current commander in chief can lead our nation out of this immigration mess because of a single fundamental and philosophical difference he has with most Americans, previous administrations and even our founders. President Obama declared it in the Rose Garden two weeks ago in the presence of Mexico's President Felipe Calderon and an international television audience. And it seemed to escape the attention of most. It was one of the most un-American, unconstitutional and radical statements to date from Obama's presidency. He said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

His statement reminded me of what I wrote in my new expanded paperback edition of "Black Belt Patriotism": "For better or worse, we have new leadership and a new direction for America. It's a kinder and gentler Washington, to whom the global war on terror has turned into an 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' It's a softer and relational Washington, with whom international bonds are more important than national borders and boundaries." Now we have more proof from the horse's mouth.

Obama's statement in the Rose Garden is not merely a stand against Arizona's or any other states' immigration enforcement laws. It is a stand against his presidential oath, our Constitution, our national identity, security and sovereignty. For the commander in chief to go limp on border rigidity, especially when the feds themselves have been reporting for years about escalating border troubles and recently warned of foreign "terrorists" breach of U.S. southern borders (including those coming from Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen), is for the White House itself to jeopardize our national security.

Just a week ago at West Point, the president declared, "We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation." Our relatively young commander in chief gave new marching orders to a new generation and graduating class at the military academy, saying, "The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times ... combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds." His language seems eerily reminiscent to the U.S. Navy's new contested recruiting slogan, "A global force for good." Is Obama leading our country or a global government? Unfortunately, he is proving himself to be far more than a socialist – rather he is a globalist, and that is even more dangerous to our national security and sovereignty.

The White House website confessed that Obama's new National Security Strategy released last Thursday is "a blueprint for pursuing the world that we seek by outlining a strategy to rebuild our foundations, promote a just and sustainable international order … and universal values." It plays down the threat of terror, trumps up (24 times) the threat of "climate change," calls for more "global leadership," "international cooperation" and "partnerships," and regards "American innovation as a foundation of American power" rather than military might. Does that sound like a national security strategy or the beginnings of an international global-governance manifesto?

Does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G20 conference this past year he also pushed world leaders even to reshape the global economy?

Still, Obama knows he is in the political border pickle of his life. And that coddling the Mexican president, doing nothing about border violence and remaining passive in the midst of escalating national debate on illegal immigration is a recipe for political disaster and Democrat re-election demise. So last Tuesday, the White House unexpectedly announced that Obama will deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to America's southwest boundary. What timing, after he has resisted repeated calls for weeks from border state lawmakers to deploy 6,000 military personnel.

The fact is the deployment of up to 1,200 National Guard troops is a political appeasement, carefully crafted as a temporary noncombatant assignment restricted to providing only intelligence and training. You can also bet it's not a coincidence that the White House suddenly announced a $500 million supplement for border enhancement at the very same time that Senate Republicans began introducing several border security amendments to a $60 billion war spending bill. That Oval Office has amazing timing, doesn't it?!

Though I'm grateful that the White House was muscled into doing anything at this point, it should be leading in this crisis, not reacting for political gain. In the end, Obama's prescription last week for the border chaos is a clear indication that he doesn't regard the problem as dire or deteriorating. To the contrary, it is truly a Band-Aid on a national open wound (border) that is bleeding profusely.

Obama has more passion (in his own words) to "just plug the damn hole" of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico than he does to stop the illegal immigrants and contraband that are gushing through the national screens we call U.S. borders. And he shared at his press conference last Thursday that he even activated a superfluous 1,400 National Guard troops in four states to manage the oil-leak crisis!

The question still stands: What hope do we have that the feds will finally secure our national borders when their primary leader is a globalist who espouses "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders but by our bond"? Does anyone even believe it was a coincidence that Mexico's President Calderon visited the White House and addressed Congress and the American people during the very same time when Arizona's new immigration enforcement law was being debated across the nation?

I don't lay the blame for border liquidity at the feet of our dedicated border agents. But I do blame an overly bureaucratic federal government that still has not given agents the proper resources and permissions they need to get their job done. I also blame government for undermining national security by being more concerned with global commerce and relations than national sovereignty. It would rather please the international masses than enforce our own laws. Even the potential creation of a North American Union (with Canada and Mexico) and the so-called NAFTA Superhighways seems less and less conspiratorial and more and more reality-based as each year passes.

A breakdown of our borders is also being peddled via the anti-American globalism sentiment of most in Obama's cabinet. Quintessential appointees like Michael Posner, now assistant secretary of state, are leading the way. Posner recently expressed regret about Arizona's immigration law to some visiting Chinese delegates, calling it a "troubling trend in our society." If readers don't know, Posner is the founding executive director (1978-2006) and former president (2006-2009) of the international group Human Rights First, which was funded largely by billionaire leftist and globalist George Soros.

If the Obama administration so readily and publicly speaks against our republic to even Chinese delegates, and also continues to sell more and more of our nation to communist countries like China via our skyrocketing national debt, how much more difficult would it be to progressively and slowly replace the tenets of our Constitution with principles of the Communist Manifesto? Have we already started?

Unfortunately, there's little hope or security that any others in Obama's cabinet believe any different than he does about tight international bonds and loose national borders. For proof of that, we have to look no further than a few weeks ago at the congressional charade in which Vice President Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, along with a majority of Democrats and even some Republicans, all gave Mexico's President Calderon a standing ovation for condemning Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. (At least we now clearly know who stands in the way of border enforcement and who we need to vote out of office to finally get border resolve.)

Some might have thought it conspiratorial for me to write in the first edition of "Black Belt Patriotism" before Obama was in office, "Let's ask ourselves, why is Congress not securing our borders? Could it be it has greater global goals that will ultimately dissolve this Union?" Now it doesn't seem so far-fetched, does it? Whether intentionally or not, the federal government has failed for decades to secure the borders. It is up to us to make sure it gets done, and that's only going to happen when we throw the global elitists out of Congress and Washington, and re-elect a new crew that will finally fulfill this critical mission of national security and identity. The march has already started. Let us continue to remind them all: We will remember in November.

One last time – consider the philosophical differences. What's more important: bonds or borders? Yours and especially your state and national leaders' answer to that question is among the most critical, because what we believe about our borders will determine the future of our country.

Will you believe and follow the philosophical precedent of globalists like President Obama, who said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

Or will you join me and millions of other American citizens who believe and follow the definition offered by other leaders like President Ronald Reagan, who said, "A nation without borders is not a nation."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=160389

Our Founders' Solutions for Illegal Immigration, Part I, by Chuck Norris
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-199573-norris.html
and
Part II
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-200559-norris.html

I disagree with using Reagan of all people - he gave amnesty - a polished and savvy politician and former leader of CA which was suffering under the weight of the illegal population, and then he said it was a mistake. Make no mistake - it was not a mistake, it was on purpose to appease big business.

GWB was worse than Obama - at least Obama was up front about his agenda. I voted for Bush twice thinking he was against open borders and found out he was the Anti-Christ. There was a part in his amnesty where a gang member only had to say they don't want to be in their gang anymore and bingo - citizenship.

We can't trust anyone but each other this election. The top tier, regardless of party, are corrupt.