There is a growing movement in America to have a, ‘open’ or ‘borderless’ society. This is lawlessness. If we take the time to actually look at the definitions for the words being used and apply a little basic logic, this is easy to prove. If you have a moment, I’d like to show you how.
First, by definition, a nation must have a border. If it does not have a border, then it is not and cannot be a nation.
Now, the natural response to this is that one definition of ‘nation’ refers to a people, and not a specific piece of land. OK, but does that definition actually work in reality, or has it been accepted by people seeking to push a hidden agenda? Let us look to see. Look in the world and show me the ‘nation’ of Hitites. Or the ‘nation’ of Assyrians. Or the ‘nation’ of any lost people. If they exit as a nation of peoples and not in connection to the land, then why did they go extinct? We should be able to point to their descendants, but we cannot, because this application of ‘nation’ is only functional in relation to religion. I can show you the ‘nation’ of Jews, and Christians and Muslims, because they are defined by their belief system. But I cannot show you a separate ‘nation’ defined by any other means. Therefore, a nation must have borders.
The next thing we need to understand is that the laws of a nation only apply to its people. Again, if we exclude religious laws, then what nation exists in this world without being tied to a specific geographical region, yet maintains its own unique government and system of laws? It may exist, but I cannot think of one example. And even then, even with religion, those people are still subject to the laws of whatever geographically defined nation in which they happen to be living. If this were not true, if a nation could exist without borders, then it would have to be able to apply its laws to all people, everywhere, and here is the key that reveals the hidden agenda.
The people pushing for a ‘borderless society’ are actually pushing Communism! Now, Communism is, by definition, lawlessness. This is because it does not and cannot exist in the natural world. In other words, it is entirely in contradiction to Natural Law. Now, if something is against Natural Law, then by logical extension, anyone who advocates for it is acting lawlessly.
A government exists primarily to defend and preserve the nation. This requires that it defend the nation’s borders. When people advocate for a borderless or open society, they are actually claiming that they either want to eliminate the nation in question, or (more likely), establish a global government. This is actually the only logical conclusion as to what their actual agenda is because it is the only way in which we can have a nation without borders — because there would be only one, global government. That, my friends, is Communism, or Islam, or any other tyrannical ideology. The only real difference is the name by which it calls itself. Otherwise, it is all lawlessness. It is lawless because, to actually exist, it has to declare war on any and all people who reject it, and it must do so in direct opposition to Natural Law.
So, ‘open society’ = lawlessness. And those who advocate for and support an ‘open society’ are, themselves, lawless. Keep this in mind whenever you encounter them because, if they are lawless with such major things, then you have no rational reason to believe they will lawful with the most minor?
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line.
Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.
Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
This post makes the point that when we are talking about a right to immigrate we are trying to redefine the definition of national sovereignty into something unworkable. Similarly, the article at this link (=> http://www.str.org/articles/we-re-arguing-definitions-not-rights#.V8eSozUW6eE) argues that the debate over same-sex “marriage” is not about rights. It is about an unworkable definition of marriage.