Ominous Rumblings of a 'North American Union'

GOPUSA.COM ^ | APRIL 22, 2005 | CHRISTOPHER ADAMO

[CHARLITE]

Among the greatest ironies of history is that during the first part of the twentieth century two World Wars and a "Cold War" were fought on the European continent, for the specific purpose of preventing its consolidation under one governing authority. Yet by the end of the century Europeans had acquiesced to just such a fate.

Though not imposed with the imperiousness of the Kaiser or the brute force of the Reich, the concept of the "European Union" runs contrary to traditional ideas of nationalism or patriotism. Such crass sentiments are the realm of commoners, thus making them counterproductive to the new order.

Nevertheless, the lowly masses were eventually bought off with glowing assurances of economic benefits and all of the standard empty promises of liberal utopianism. Predictably, the vast majority of the European Union's "citizenry" continue to struggle, having been further mired by the malaise of that continent's burdensome socialism, which is now driven by a vastly enlarged bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, though the overwhelming majority of Americans hold such concepts in complete contempt, similar anti-national thinking has nonetheless encroached upon its shores to a degree Islamic jihadists might envy.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once lamented that American military dominance was inherently unfair, and that the best remedy was to assist the advancement of competing military establishments in other countries. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Ginsburg have, in recent rulings, looked to the laws and governing philosophies of other nations for justification.

But while the majority of Americans do not embrace this contemptible thinking, neither do they stage mass protests in the wake of such court decisions, demanding the ouster of their authors, as would certainly have been the case only a few short years ago. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly evident that such alarming ideologies are not confined to those on the left.

Though the signs of a growing acceptance of this mindset have become glaringly obvious, most Americans remain reluctant to believe that their leaders would even contemplate the forfeiture of this nation's sovereignty to such a degree. Yet the behavior of high placed individuals, including President Bush, raise extremely disturbing questions as to just how willing they might be to copy the Europeans.

Recently, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez Baustista floated a "trial balloon" during a speech at the University of Texas, ominously revealing a possible answer. According to Baustista, Mexico and the United States should eventually become "integrated," thus forming what can only be construed as the hub of a "North American Union," no doubt eventually including Canada as well.

President Bush has indicated a disturbing sympathy towards such thinking, refusing to characterize Mexican immigrants as "illegal." In contrast, he implies illegality by the "Minutemen" who now protect the border, having described them as "vigilantes."

Conversely, he discusses the actions of the "undocumented immigrants" as "pursuing their dreams," seemingly indifferent to the fact that Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of fulfilling those dreams, ultimately at the expense of their own.

On other crucial fronts, the President clearly shows a willingness to embrace policies that significantly weaken the nation's borders. When dealing with Canada, he steadfastly advocates a beef import program that clearly puts the interests of Canadian beef producers ahead of their American competitors.

Thus he allows an influx of beef from the north that threatens to seriously degrade this country's food supply. Though a financial boon to Canadian agriculture, it provides no incentives to enhance the quality of beef produced there while undermining the viability of American cattle growers.

Meanwhile, President Bush has been championing the "Law Of the Sea Treaty" (LOST), whereby seagoing Americans would henceforth be subject to a maritime version of the "International Criminal Court."

The perceived "benefits" of this blurring of national boundaries might initially sound attractive, particularly to individuals whose primary impetus is monetary. But America stands to lose far more than it could ever hope to gain by compromising its freedom and independence.

Although indispensable to national security, an able military is not the key to a strong nation. Such strength lies within its culture. America cannot remain strong or great if it is overwhelmed by people who uphold neither its society nor its laws, but instead seek only after its wealth.

Despite the establishment of the "European Union" that continent's vibrancy and greatness continue to decline as a result of its own cultural erosion. America may soon follow.

Comments: cadamo@wyoming.com

[Czar]

I admire the President for many things. At the same time, I recognize he is not going to "get us out of the UN". I do believe he is very disappointed with what the UN has become and is serious about the need for wide and deep reforms.

For myself, I would like to see us out of the UN and the UN out of our country.

[Radioactive]

"For English, Press One"

I HATE WHEN THAT COMES UP!!!!!!!

I don't shop anywhere that that comes into play. And I tell the manager about it.

Screw Spanish. I hated it in High school and I hate it now....especially as it is now becomming the first language of the US.

[Capt. Tom]

I agree. He is not only wide awake but knows exactly what he is doing... and the interests, safety, sovereignty and economic health of the AMERICAN citizens he was elected to serve have nothing to do with his plans. I've thought for a long time that he was attempting to aid the corporations only, to the detriment of working Americans. But, as this article demonstrates, there may be something even more sinister in store.

It's the problem with the two party system. read my bio.

The socialists(dems) want open Mexican borders because that will mean more people depending on Government. IN welfare, healthcare, prisons. And if the illegals vote it will be for the socialists for more give away programs.

Socialists can redistribute the wealth by taxing the workers to pay for this,and/or raising the minimum wage..

The Republicans want open borders with Mexico because they can undermine their hated enemy the labor unions, by letting slave labor pull down union wages. Slave labor is good for business,unions are not.

So that is why Clinton can leave the border wide open for 8 years without a peep out of most of the Republicans and that is why Bush can continue to leave it open without a peep out of the Socialists.

Anyone who is trying to close the door to Illegal immigration will inure the wrath of both political gangs the Republics and the Socialists. - Tom

[Vince Ferrer]

There is a perfectly acceptable way to do this, which I support. Just have them apply for statehood, and annex the territories.

[dagnabbit]

Can't say I hate Spanish. As languages go, it's not so bad (ie - its not something like Finnish or Mandarin). I have no objection to folks speaking Spanish in Spain and in Latin America - and when I'm in those places, I try to speak Spanish.

That's not to say, however, that its widespread use within the United States instead of English is a good thing.

On that, I say no: The retreat of universal English in the USA is very bad for us in terms of national unity, civic relations, public safety, education standards, etc.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I do not think an adult should have dual citizenship.

---

Theodore Roosevelt Advocates Americanism, 1915

---

... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

[rasblue]

I missed the memo that said that English was the official language of the US.

Not saying that it shouldn't be the official language, but its not so do something about it or stop the xenophobic krap.

[rasblue]

>Should the U.S. and Canada get involved in a shooting war >with each other, which country would you fight for?

>Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

Whichever country is more free. Whichever country respects the rights of folks to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But I will tell you that I would fight to the death against religious fascists wherever they may come from.

[Petronski]

Over my dead body.

[Radioactive]

I missed the memo that said that English was the official language of the US.

OK...lets make Swahili the official language...quit being so stupid.

Of course English is the official language.

Try speaking anything else in this country except for certain areas which are expanding every day.

Your attitude is what is wrong with this country.

An open mind means nothing more than having a huge hole in your head.

I can't believe that anyone would make such an ignorant statement that you just made.

The very same problem is ocurring in Canada..where the Damned Frenchers are splitting the nation apart.

We must have a common language or we will go the way of every other powerfull nation that has proceeded us.

[PGalt]

bump

[DLfromthedesert]

Well to heck with borders and countries if it would make YOUR life easier.

[DLfromthedesert]

But he sure wants to screw the UN or Bolton wouldn't have been nominated.

[Czar]

"But he sure wants to screw the UN or Bolton wouldn't have been nominated."

Just my own feeling, but I don't think he really wants to screw the UN. Rather, he want to shake it up because he knows most Americans are aware of the UN scandals and deep organizational deficiencies, and do not trust them. I believe he knew the left would fight like hell to obstruct and defeat the Bolton nomination. What I don't know is whether he's satisfied to simply let the fight itself be his "message" to the UN and that he doesn't care whether Bolton is confirmed or not (i.e., that he never intended to mount a fight to the end for Bolton). We'll simply have to wait and see.

[Dead Corpse]

No Union. Never. Ever. Canada and Mexico can petition for Statehood under our Constitution. Other than that... screw 'em.

[CHARLITE]

"Canada and Mexico can petition for Statehood under our Constitution."

What a snappy comment. I'm lovin' it!

Thanks, "Dead Corpse!"

Char :)

[Dead Corpse]

Not sure about the whole "snappy" thing, but the US giving in to Socialist Canada or the Criminal Mexican Mafia is just not an option.

Maybe we could use them as test labs. We can try out various free market reforms in both countries before implementing them here.