You have not viewed any products recently.


Actually, Obama Backs Defending Borders

View all posts from this blog

By:John Seiler | February 12, 2015

Chronicles readers might assume President Obama and his administration favor open borders. Not true. From an actual news story in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Kerry repeated demands that Russia-backed separatists pull back their troops and heavy weapons and that Moscow seal its side of the border.”

It’s part of the dissolution of what used to be America that the putative government of “We the people” is less concerned about our own actual, porous borders than with the border on the other side of the world of the Ukraine, which most Americans can’t distinguish from the UK.

It’s not just the Obama regime. It’s Republicans in Congress, who are obsessed with baiting the Russian bear and its 10,000 nuclear weapons in a way no Cold War president would have done to the old Soviet Union. That’s because our congressmen, brainwashed by the Neocons, don’t know the difference between a nuclear-tipped chiliastic communist regime and a broken-down semi-czarist regime trying to keep its backyard from being occupied by NATO. Which treaty organization, by the way, existed only to defend against the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.

Meanwhile, Obama actually said this to about the borders he’s sworn to defend, but leaves wide open: “Over the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks. People are getting more and more comfortable with the diversity of this country, much more sophisticated about both the cultural differences but more importantly, the basic commonality that we have.”

Actually, it “just becomes more and more” like Ukraine, Syria, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and other “hodgepodge” areas America keeps invading to impose a “basic commonality” with guns and drones.

And the Republican leadership in Congress isn’t doing anything to stop the Balkanizing influx. Using a vulgarity, House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday insisted Senate Democrats “get off their” behinds on immigration. Apparently he forgot that Republicans now control both houses of Congress and can simply refuse to pass a budget that doesn’t build an effective border fence and deport adequate numbers of those who have broken our border laws.

That’s the real reason the American Empire will end, not with a whimper, but a bang. The troops will be brought home to quell the strife brought about by all that “diversity.”



San Antonio
2/12/2015 07:47 PM

  Great post Mr. Seiler. Our two Senators in Texas are cuckoo on Russia. I have always agreed with Buchanan about defending the border and that all these immigrants cannot be assimilated. However, I think people cannot read the handwriting on the wall. Texas just ain't Texas anymore. I would like to add that Russia is better off without Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. Perhaps the U.S. would be better off without Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, South Texas, and South Florida. Any thoughts?

Bryan Fox
2/12/2015 09:57 PM

  The troops maybe brought home to quell the strife(violating Posse Comitatus) but it will be to suppress those opposed to the diversity. I have said before and will continue to remind that the modern definition of Diversity is as few Whites as possible.

2/12/2015 10:57 PM

  Mr. Fox, I have enjoyed your posts for some time but have rarely mentioned it. This one: "The troops may be brought home to quell the strife..... but will be used to suppress those opposed to the diversity" is a good example of the pithy, insightful truths I have come to expect and enjoy from your posts. Thank you and keep them coming.

Harry Heller
San Francisco
2/13/2015 04:34 AM

  Louis of San Antonio: you may be correct about the US shedding the 50 miles immediately north f the Mexican border in terms of narrow electoral politics, but you are deeply wrong as a matter of long term Middle Americanist strategy. That is our territory, not simply jurisdictionally, but in terms of "historical morality", which in this context I mean something like "we Americans built it and made it productive [ie, brought the land within our general Anglo-Occidental civilization]". Why should we give it up? Here are some better territories to start with. We should all advocate independent nationhood for Puerto Rico, Guam, "American" Samoa and the "US" Virgin Islands. We should also back Hawaiian sovereignty (that's about as "radical" an irredentist idea as might actually gain majority support). Beyond that, we must just keep working towards the Middle American Revolution extolled by Sam Francis. The MAR would include the deportation of illegals, and the end of nonwhite immigration (with much else in the way of white American cultural nationalism).

San Antonio
2/13/2015 05:30 PM

  Don't get me wrong the U.S. borders should be defended. Mr. Heller I agree with you 100% from a historical standpoint and the Middle American Radicals standpoint of which I consider myself one. Regarding Texas even more so because it won it's own independence from Mexico and with the help of many Tejanos! I would even argue that Hispanics were assimilated into the U.S. rather well at one time at least in the state of Texas. However, the changes that have occurred in the last 25 years (perhaps about 50 years) in the southwest may be more fundamental than you think. Let me play Devil's advocate a little. You may have already given it up with all the legal immigrants from Latin America since the 1960's. Half of all the Hispanics in the U.S. live in California and Texas and I think 80% of all Hispanic-Americans live in the Southwest more generally. How much would the Hispanic population plummet if we gave up the Southwest? How much would the share of the White/Occidental population increase in the U.S.? How much debt would the U.S. be eliminating without having to bailout Southern California? Interesting questions to ponder don't you think? We did build on it and make it productive. Especially in Texas where the Spanish introduced ranching in the first place. However, in San Antonio the birthplace of all this, ranching is all but dead. We are about to have our Stock Show and Rodeo. San Antonio has not even had an operating stockyard in over a decade! Regarding the U.S. territories you are correct we should give them up. Reagarding Hawaii it may be good for the U.S. to recognize Hawaiian sovereignty. However, I question the wisdom of the native Hawaiians themselves in this matter. From what I have read native Hawaiians and Asians like each other about as much as black and Hispanic gangs do. The native Hawaiians would soon be in a severe disadvantage in my opinion. This is of course their choice and I would not stand in their way if they did secede.


You have not viewed any products recently.


To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.