CNHT's paranoia about open borders

[Caleb]

True enough, Jane, but you are conveniently forgetting that the Republicans did massive vote fraud in Ohio.  Vote fraud seems to be a bipartisan affair.

Caleb

[tracysaboe]

I don't think she was implying that it wasn't.

Tracy

[CNHT]

Also, the immigrants streaming over the border is the perfect 'problem' to be used in the fashion of Hegel where they will first create the problem then offer you the solution.
Is this not what was done with the 9/11 situation? It is being done with other issues as well, to effectively get the public to accept things they might not otherwise.

I wish I could find the chilling quote where the NWO crafters bragged that by the time they got done with us, we would be begging for their protection.

To stop the flow over the borders would just relieve them of one more of their tools to use gov't as  the 'solution'.

How can you be so savvy about Oka City, 9/11, etc, mad cow, and not this?

THINK ABOUT IT.

[CNHT]

True enough, Jane, but you are conveniently forgetting that the Republicans did massive vote fraud in Ohio.  Vote fraud seems to be a bipartisan affair.

Caleb

The machines are fixed and the worker bees on BOTH sides try to justify as many voters as they can. In NH it just happened to be the Kerry/Lynch supporters who did the most same-day damage.

[CNHT]

I don't think she was implying that it wasn't.

Tracy

I wasn't, and again, I'm more concerned with voter fraud in NH, which is usually the work of the left, because NH has traditionally been an anti-tax state and those folks want so badly to 'equalize' education by instituting an income tax.

[mvpel]

"Close the schools, open the borders," is I think how Vin Suprynowicz puts it.

[CNHT]

"Close the schools, open the borders," is I think how Vin Suprynowicz puts it.

Yeah but it's a little too late since the 'education' of the masses was begun when the first children were forced into the gov't schools many decades ago.

[FrankChodorov]

Also, the immigrants streaming over the border is the perfect 'problem' to be used in the fashion of Hegel where they will first create the problem then offer you the solution.
Is this not what was done with the 9/11 situation? It is being done with other issues as well, to effectively get the public to accept things they might not otherwise.

I wish I could find the chilling quote where the NWO crafters bragged that by the time they got done with us, we would be begging for their protection.

To stop the flow over the borders would just relieve them of one more of their tools to use gov't as  the 'solution'.

How can you be so savvy about Oka City, 9/11, etc, mad cow, and not this?

THINK ABOUT IT.

I thought you said you were only qualified to speak knowledgeable about NH issues?

[CNHT]

I thought you said you were only qualified to speak knowledgeable about NH issues?

I am very well read about the NWO, and ways people are mind-controlled. I worked in a public school and thus saw and combatted mind-control each and every day.

I merely said that I prefer to work on NH issues that we can change and solve, since arguing about borders and Iraq cannot solve things. I should say making NH a free state would be quite a big enough task.

And I find it interesting that you have not been conversing with either of the other two hosts of the radio show yet you are already threatening to make fools out of them. This tells me  you are already opposed to the principles which CNHT stands for. (Lower taxes, less gov't) If you think you are going to engage them in an argument about the Iraq war, you are sadly mistaken because it is a waste of time and isn't going to happen.

I am willing to bet that you, Bill Grennon, are for the building of the kindergarten in Goffstown?

[CNHT]

If we lived in a truly free land, how could the world government take control?  What military/governmental apparatus would there be for them to take control of?  Would you, as a liberty loving American, stand idly by - or would you fight?

Ian you need to read the following website thoroughly to acquaint yourself with the Global Governance of the UN that is already in place:

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm

http://www.sovereignty.net/ is the main page.

If you think there is such thing as a truly free land with NO government to protect it from this, you are kidding yourself. They will take over all the other governments and are indeed making headway on this. And YES I would fight the UN to the death.

Why do you think the folks on this site do so many UN flag burnings?

I am currently searching for a map of the divisions that the UN intends to make with regard to the sections of the globe as they wish them to be and as the Vermonters envision to be part of..

Here is a sample:

The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, at which official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000. Among those recommendations are specific proposals to expand the authority of the United Nations to provide:

Global taxation;
A standing UN army;
An Economic Security Council;
UN authority over the global commons;
An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;
A new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs);
A new "Petitions Council";
A new Court of Criminal Justice; (Accomplished in July, 1998 in Rome)
Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;
Expanded authority for the Secretary General.

[Lloyd Danforth]

"Close the schools, open the borders," is I think how Vin Suprynowicz puts it.

Yeah but it's a little too late since the 'education' of the masses was begun when the first children were forced into the gov't schools many decades ago.

Never too late, just late!

[CNHT]

Never too late, just late!

Yeah but methinks some of these folks (Hello Ian) need to read up on what the UN is up to. It's a bit naive to think that we can have a free society without an army and not have the UN move in on us, which it has already. When you read the UN's website, you have to keep in mind that this is a NON-governmental organization that suddenly has taken on the task of playing God to the world to save it by eradicating poverty, hunger, war, and tell it what to do. (Sort of like the NHMA does within NH)

What some do not understand that in a truly free society there WILL at times be war, and there should be diversity so that no one entity can be in control, and there will be some poverty and hunger since it would be outside social control.

I am still searching on the map of the 'blocs' that the UN has in mind...one of them being New Acadia, just as Bill has suggested with the SVR movement.


He is a UN type, just as I suspected when he first started posting here.

My argument for sovereignty is in the best interests of freedom given the reality of what is going on today. To argue for a borderless world is to empower the UN, period.

[tracysaboe]

If we lived in a truly free land, how could the world government take control?  What military/governmental apparatus would there be for them to take control of?  Would you, as a liberty loving American, stand idly by - or would you fight?

Ian you need to read the following website thoroughly to acquaint yourself with the Global Governance of the UN that is already in place:

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm

http://www.sovereignty.net/ is the main page.

If you think there is such thing as a truly free land with NO government to protect it from this, you are kidding yourself. They will take over all the other governments and are indeed making headway on this. And YES I would fight the UN to the death.

Why do you think the folks on this site do so many UN flag burnings?

I am currently searching for a map of the divisions that the UN intends to make with regard to the sections of the globe as they wish them to be and as the Vermonters envision to be part of..

Here is a sample:

The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, at which official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000. Among those recommendations are specific proposals to expand the authority of the United Nations to provide:

Global taxation;
A standing UN army;
An Economic Security Council;
UN authority over the global commons;
An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;
A new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs);
A new "Petitions Council";
A new Court of Criminal Justice; (Accomplished in July, 1998 in Rome)
Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;
Expanded authority for the Secretary General.

What Ian I think doesn't quite understand, is that we don't live in a "truly free land." And that there needs to be a certain order of opporations in bring about liberty. Advocating for open boarders, before we get rid of welfore, affirmative actions, etc is asking for more statism and trouble.

Tracy

[Lloyd Danforth]

I don't think the UN has any interest in taking us over without our government's help or that they could get their shit together to do it.  Plus, they can't get out of bed without US funding.
Some country out their might have the ability and stones to invade us, but, how much worse would we be without the government we have whose military is designed to invade and conduct wars in other countries, not defend this one, and is overextended to boot.
I think ending the government and puting all of the land mass into private hands would, certainly,  change immigration as we know it and not be likely to increase the likelyhood of invasion.

[tracysaboe]

Never too late, just late!

Yeah but methinks some of these folks (Hello Ian) need to read up on what the UN is up to. It's a bit naive to think that we can have a free society without an army and not have the UN move in on us, which it has already. When you read the UN's website, you have to keep in mind that this is a NON-governmental organization that suddenly has taken on the task of playing God to the world to save it by eradicating poverty, hunger, war, and tell it what to do. (Sort of like the NHMA does within NH)

What some do not understand that in a truly free society there WILL at times be war, and there should be diversity so that no one entity can be in control, and there will be some poverty and hunger since it would be outside social control.

I am still searching on the map of the 'blocs' that the UN has in mind...one of them being New Acadia, just as Bill has suggested with the SVR movement.


He is a UN type, just as I suspected when he first started posting here.

My argument for sovereignty is in the best interests of freedom given the reality of what is going on today. To argue for a borderless world is to empower the UN, period.

Ian is saying that private militias, security companies, insurence companies and their privately owned regional defence companies would more then make-up for not having a U.S. army to protect us. This idea that stateless ness implies nobody defending it is nonsence.

You are right. THe U.N. would move on us, just like they've done several times in Smoalia. But the U.N. hasn't won any of those times because the people, clans, and warlords of the area have defended themselves from U.N. imposed rule.

Considering the heightend wealth, division of labor, and business tools like insurence contracts and private protection agencies already in existance, It's much less likely the U.N. would be successfull against stateless NH.

Tracy