The Nation-State Is Finished

thenewamerican.com ^ | February 23, 2004 | William F. Jasper

[mrsmith]

That is what a nation-state would do IMO. What we would traditionally do.
Militarize our border and then use an inevitable conflict with the Mexican army as reason to invade and conquer.

That doesn't seem wise so perhaps we are not a nation-state in some way. But perhaps it will seem wise in the future- if we are still a nation-state and not some new entity.

[B4Ranch]

Source?

Every editorial author in conservative magazines covered this subject.

[B4Ranch]

The United Nations would never authorize an attack on a bordering country.

Why do you think they choose the US in which to place their headquarters? Those elite people don't like to get too close to the daily sufferings of the common people.

[B4Ranch]

The New Deal writ large and a shiny new welcome mat at every border station.

[jpsb]

So it should be easy to provide a source. Forbes was NOT an open border amnasty for illegals. And neither was he in favor of WTO and these other world government organizations. Also Forbes got very little support here at FR.

[EGPWS]

Beyond that, what do you consider our Dogma?

That IS our Dogma.

Did I say something that was prone to improper interpretation?

If so, I apologize for my errors.

[B4Ranch]

"what do you consider our Dogma?"

This Dogma has been ridiculed, shattered and shunned in every NEA controlled educational institution in the United States for forty five years.

The majority of Americans are not even aware of its existance and the United States Supreme Court would strike it down should it become public knowledge.

[mrsmith]

Americans (including you) don't think it a wise act.
That is what is significant.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Get that? Mr. Bartley was bragging that he and the Journal — that supposed bastion of conservatism — were pushing for open borders 20 years ago! Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but that is another way of saying that Bartley and company were (are) pushing for the abolition of the United States of America. Which is to say — and there’s no way around it — that Bartley and his WSJ coterie were (and are) engaged in subversion and treason, no matter how respectable they may appear or how cleverly they couch their verbal assaults on nationhood."

Get that? People best start waking up to what both parties have become, and more than that, they best start making some noise if they want to keep their nation. Bush will have nothing to lose in his second term as he has strong armed his way to the Fast Track ability and has said he is determined to push the FTAA treaty through congress and the senate. Who is going to put the brakes on this during Bush's second term?

[tacticalogic]

Not at all. I've just run into too many who want to elevate societal mores to the status of political dogma.

[EGPWS]

Who is going to put the brakes on this during Bush's second term?

Who is it that is going to put the breaks on it without a second Bush term?

[tacticalogic]

It is alive and well here.

[MissAmericanPie]

That is not the way I remember it happening. I remember it being pushed through during a holiday when most lawmakers were leaving D.C. for the Thanksgiving holiday.

I remember a reporter asking a Senator if he understood what GATT would do to the second amendment and the Senator said no he had not read it in it's entirity, the reporter asked him since now he had been made aware would he vote for it now and the Senator said no, but of course he was lying. He looked like a deer caught in the headlights.

At the time I didn't understand what was going on, I wasn't as political then as now.

[EGPWS]

Why do you think they choose the US in which to place their headquarters?

$$$ and $$$.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Once annexing Mexico, which also doesn't share a language commonality with us, we would need a battery of attorneys and an army of translators with the United Nations demanding approval issuance on every agreement before and after conferencing could begin.

You are right of course, the language problem would be significant. My solution was somewhat "tongue in cheek" but would eventually allow the US to alter the part of Mexico that we don't support, I. E. corruption and poverty in the midst of a rich country. There are however many untaped resources in Mexico and better cooperation with the US could leadn them out of third world status.

As for gathering up some of the poor in the USA, I am not in the business of supporting them with my financial resources. I would favor more street cleaning jobs but if Mexico were ours, perhaps they could assist with the teaching of english? As to the United Nations, I would bypass them by getting the Mexicans themselves to vote as a soverign nation state to annex. Much as was done with Texas.

[tacticalogic]

We've made the 2A subservient to the Commerce Clause, and placed commerce regulation within the pervue of the UN. The results are predictable.

[KC_for_Freedom]

We went to a Republican convention in Burlingame Ca, (similar to the one just held, only back when Forbes was running for president.)

We asked his staff what his position on illegal immigration and were told if that was an issue with us, we should go find Pat Buchanan supporters and join them.

At this time people were listening to Kemp who felt that a serious anti immigration position would drive the hispanics who "were a natural ally of republicans" into the democrat camp. Of course that is still where they are.

If Forbes has changed his positon currently, I am unaware.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Militarize our border and then use an inevitable conflict with the Mexican army as reason to invade and conquer.

I think Mexico would vote themselves into the republic if valid elections were to be proposed. The leadership of Mexico would be offended and opposed, but I was not planning on a military take over, this unfortunately would enhance the "ugly American" syndrome around the globe.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Hey, lookie there, you've got dictators Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Robert Mugabee on your side:

Amid protests, Venezuela's president warns Third World leaders against free market policies

EU hoping for developing world summit to agree on free trade talks - Castro and Mugabe take a pass

[KC_for_Freedom]

So it should be easy to provide a source. Forbes was NOT an open border amnasty for illegals. And neither was he in favor of WTO and these other world government organizations. Also Forbes got very little support here at FR.

As I said, Forbes had a very good tax idea in the flat tax. He also proposed not taxing pensions, interest income, and dividend income. He was rejected before he could move by the very people who would benefit most, the AARP. As to his border positions, what he did IMO was dodge the issue and take a Kemp position that we should not antagonize this segment of our population because they were hard working and rapidly growing. No I did not hear a proposal about border control it was more like "keep the status quo" which I interpreted as meaning we would have more of the same. I believe Forbes and Bush would be more in agreement about the flood of immigrants than in disagreement. I was in California at the time and a supporter of proposition 187, I believe Forbes was opposed to that proposition, but cannot cite a source.