Headline News

About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Commentary Consumer News
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home


Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.


Joe Hill
Submitted by Olaf Childress
Apr. 5, 2005

“Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, acknowledging the difficulty of monitoring the southern border said Thursday the United States would work with Mexico to thwart al-Qaida and other terrorist groups rather than trade accusations.” That was the opening sentence of a report filed by AP writer Liz Sidoti as published in The Mobile Register on Friday March 11, 2005.

For all who are unfamiliar with The First Freedom and those questioning the rest of the media’s veracity, my Liberty Consulting reports will point out what most readers of such “outsider” tabloids consider obvious: that the American public is being indoctrinated into a world view by the media, government and much of commerce. Which wouldn't be so bad, except that said world view attacks the very freedom supposedly advanced by that world view. As it’s impossible to convince a first-time reader of this fact in a single report, consider what follows as simply one piece of admissible evidence.

For starters, a book could be written about propaganda based on that one sentence above. Did you catch the lie (LIES, actually)? Both the writer and Ms. Rice misdirect and obfuscate the issue. Sidoti defines it as “monitoring” the border. Surely she is aware that NASA was monitoring spaceship Columbia when it disintegrated over Texas. Rice implies the choices are either dialogue with Mexico to keep al-Qaida out, or get into a finger pointing match with same. “Monitoring” the border merely confirms what we already know – thousands of illegals enter daily. And, as for Madam Secretary, “working with Mexico” will do nothing to stem that flow. After all, the objective is TO SECURE the border.

Or is it? Here are the main quotes by our Head of State in that article:

“We and the Mexicans had a robust dialogue about border security, and I believe we're going to continue to have that.”

“This is not a matter of pointing fingers. This is a matter of really trying to get the best possible coordination and work that we can so that there's safety for citizens in both countries, on both sides of the border.”

“There is no secret that al-Qaida will try to get into this country and into other countries by any means they possibly can.”

Note: Rice recognizes that unprotected borders afford entry opportunities for terrorists. Also note: she bases the terms of our security on “dialoguing” with Mexico and “working for Mexican security.” Long-term security south of the border may indeed benefit our own, but does nothing to meet OUR security needs in the foreseeable future; the floodgate remains open. Framing this issue as a matter of diplomatic relations with Mexico is a propagandist technique of false choices – diverting the consumer away from his real problem. It gives the impression something is being done while doing nothing. The only appropriate “dialoguing” would be to notify all that we are deploying the National Guard along our border to stop illegal entries, with a disclaimer that this is not to be interpreted as provocative toward Mexico in any manner.

Rice surely knows all this; she is well-educated and intelligent. But it is also a known fact that President Bush demands intense loyalty. Is Condi conning the American people by ignoring principle, constitutionality, common sense and our security in order to maintain that loyalty? Apparently so. A patriot would resign before participating in such a scheme designed to divert our attention away from the only sensible solution.

It must therefore be assumed the U.S. Government is not interested in securing our border. We hear this, that, and the other has been – and is being, or gunna be – done; but that influx continues unabated. So, if the world view being fostered by “media” and government is not one of a sovereign people within secure borders in a hostile world, what world view DO they have in mind? You'll have to study The First Freedom and other sources outside the mediacracy in order to reach a well-informed opinion, and I encourage you to do so. What’s wrong with trusting the “regular” media? Plenty, and here's a hint: the rise of a world-state and the fall of freedom may have been long in the planning for “nations without borders” under this guise of “cheap” labor – which ends up costing us more, anyway. But that's another story. Meanwhile, they are monitoring the situation. Come in Columbia. Columbia, do you copy?

(Enhanced for Netscape)

top Top

Previous Page

World News Alaska News

ptbas.jpg - 5185 Bytes
Web Alaska Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved