A Lack Of Vision On The Right

Apparently some respected bloggers on the Right are lacking when it comes to long term vision as regards the future of North America in the face of globalization.

And for their sweet, sweet sanity I’m thankful on this wintry Thanksgiving Day. First out of the chute: John Hawkins, who wrote a point-by-point debunking of this kooky rumor back in July. Next came See-Dub, who called out our native true believers this morning by name:

I'm not an alarmist worried of a government agency secretly planning the merging of Mexico, Canada and the US. But anyone with the ability to look beyond the headlines and understand that where we arrive tomorrow is a direct result of the direction we are headed today should be able to understand precisely what is envisioned by many on the Left and the Right as an expanded view of America which will absolutely undermine our sovereignty.

Does anyone believe Bush's open border approach is a result of his inability to find a good gardener for his ranch? Big business, particularly manufacturing, wants cheaper labor so as to compete with newly industrialized behemoths like China and India. The Left has its own political motivations.

The Pan-Americanization of American politics is already taking place as throngs of Mexicans take to the streets to score political points, just as they have done throughout South American for decades - several MSM outlets pointed that out during the last big illegal immigration kerkuffle.

No, we aren't going to wake up one day and find Canada, Mexico and America merged. That would be impossible as things stand. But raising the standard of living in Mexico, which we do everyday by exporting billions of economic underground dollars, is a major prerequisite for just such a move.

And despite the known existence of several terror cells in Canada, no one has come close to demanding the same border protections in the North that so many are intent on seeing to the South.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not so much against it anymore as I've come to understand its inevitable if America wants to have a chance of ever having a neo-American century again after this century.

The combining of resources and populations throughout the Continent to an extent where you will hardly be able to tell the difference from one North American nation to another is the long term future. And a failure to recognize it is simply a matter of keeping your head in the sand, or being focused only on the headlines of today.

Which really isn't a bad thing considering the current challenges we face. But calling individuals who understand it nut cases is a little off the mark. They're really more like excitable boys crying wolf based upon some probably small-minded prejudices of their own. But the globalization wolf is out there and it's only a matter of time before she devours the America we know today to produce the one we'll need to sustain our militaristic strength and economic growth into tomorrow.

Comments

[Jim C]

As a former over the road truck driver, I can tell you that we are already seeing Mexican truckdrivers bringing their trucks and goods across the border. The pan-American interstate that they talked about in the article has been rumored for years.

I agree with you, I think that pan-Americanization is inevitable if we are going to keep our military and economic superiority. I don't agree with it, and I sure don't like the idea of giving up our soveriegnty... as a matter of fact I personally would fight it tooth and nail, but how will we compete with India, China, the EU and others if we don't do something?

[cintal]

I would much rather live in a culture with Hispanic overtones than in one ruled by Islamic-Fascism. If we (Americans) are wise, we will combine our resources and military strengths with Mexico and other countries in South and Central America to combat the latter. The shifting and combining of cultures doesn't have to be a negative thing. Obviously, we should avoid the mistakes made by Europe in opening our borders to any and everyone without insisting on assimilation and respect for our laws. America has a tradition of tolerance and all of us (natural born citizens and immigrants) should remember that. That does sound a little like “Can’t we all get along?”. The process of combining cultures is not easy and does take a long, long time (decades? centuries?). Many people fear the influx of illegal immigrants because of the drain on our welfare system. If the U.S. adopted the Fair Tax system, much of this problem would be fixed. Black markets will always exist but by paying a consumption tax, everyone would have to pay into the same big pot. These are all very general comments and there is no quick fix to any of the problems we face in the U.S. However, the bottom line is that things are changing and we need to adapt to it.

[Steel]

I posted this awhile back ...

Being stuck between Canada and Mexico is a pain in the butt. One country is full of fools who are too damned nice to run their own country and the other is full of people who are so damned poor they don't really have a country and flee. Wouldn't it be nice if we could facilitate the two of 'em getting together without having to stop here? Like a pipeline from Mexico to Canada. That way, all those nice Canooks could welcome all those poor hungry refugees. Then, after all the Mexicans are in Canada, we could build a wall real quick on the northern border and give every American half a mile of beachfront in the then empty Mexico, plant a bunch of corn in the interior, become energy independent with the resultant ethanol, build a little bitty short-ass wall on the border with Guatemala, and let in just enough people to mow the lawns and stuff.

[Layer Seven]

I must have missed out somewhere. Please, what is a "neo-American century?"

[cintal]

Steel, Your comments are very un-p.c. and seriously funny. I do remember reading your post a while back. Check out this blog, www.markinmexico.com, for interesting insights into the current political situation in Mexico.

[cintal]

Make that www.markinmexico.blogspot.com

[Layer Seven]

So, maybe "neo-American century" is not just a mystery to me.

Yet, so we can have one, we must unify North America? Is that the gist of the argument? Do I have it?

[Layer Seven]

OK, maybe there's more to it. I know the goals of not having a border; these seem rather clear.

For Democrats, it is catering to Latino voters.
For Republicans, it is cheap labor and catering to Latino voters (the latter is futile).

So we have CHEAP LABOR TODAY. The salaries of low end American workers are SERIOUSLY depressed by the plentiful supply of cheap illegal alien labor which cannot (or can barely) negotiate salaries. The availability of jobs for American seasonal workes including students is SERIOUSLY depressed, as are their wages.

We already have cheap labor. Is this a goal of merging North America?

Fighting Islamo-Fascism. How precisely does merging North America help us fight Islamo-fascism, pray tell? I am somewhat dubious about this goal. Can someone please clarify? Otherwise, I will speculate later.

Maybe a realistic goal of merging North America is to further socialism. Certainly, massive amounts of wealth will need to be redistributed to Mexicans. This goal is palpable; it seems real.

Good idea.

[Layer Seven]

OK, on fighting Islamo-Fascism.

It is possible that one day the United States will make war on Islamo-fascism. Today that is arguably NOT the case. Will the socialists, which comprise 50% of Mexico's population, and a larger percentage of Canada's population, be sympathetic to the fight? What do you think is likely? Are the odds as good as a toss-up? Or, instead, will the Canadians and the Mexicans vote like America's democrats, to run away?

By the way, is Obrador president of the United States, too, or just Mexico?

[cintal]

Layer Seven, I'm not suggesting that the U.S. and Mexico "merge"...although this may indeed happen in time, at least culturally. And, being a libertarian, I'm not in favor of redistribution of wealth. However, I don't think that the U.S. is going to be able to totally stop people from poorer countries from wanting to come here. A fair tax system would go a long way towards equalizing the "contributions" that are made by all of us to keep the standard of living we are used to. Clean water, excellent highway and road systems, access to education and medical facilities to name a few. Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. If there is a consumption tax (to replace the income tax) then everyone has to contribute.

[Layer Seven]

Ah hah, as I suspected, we agree perfectly!

Consumption tax must replace the current goofy tax on productivity, if we are to have another neo-American century.

Best regards, and truly love this blog.

[cintal]

But don't you think we are fighting Islamo-Fascism now? The media may not report it that way and much of our somewhat lazy populace may not be seeing it that way, but we are already fighting it. My knowledge of Mexico and it's political history is not great, but it is growing. It is important to understand how interconnected we are (the U.S. and Mexico). Being in Mexico, outside of the resort areas, is like being in another world. It is very easy to see how so many people have been duped into believing that socialism is the answer to their problems. But, in the end, these people want freedom, too. I just can't see Mexican women (and this includes the indigenous people and those with more European ancestry) choosing to live under Sharia law. For that matter, I have wondered where the hell the feminists have been in this country with all of this talk of radical Islam. In regard to AMLO (Obrador), word is that he is losing the support of his own group. This doesn't mean he won't be causing trouble, however. I don't think he declared himself to be the Pres. of the U.S. yet, maybe soon.

[rightwingprof]

That's disingenuous. A moonbat is a moonbat, whether he thinks Bush is responsible for 9/11, thinks there's some Jew conspiracy to create an American supernation with Canada and Mexico, or thinks Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

Tancredo is a nutcase. Period.

[Steel]

Mark ...

Thank you, I was just on your site last night and enjoyed. I'll add it to my roll.

rightwingprof ...

He is AND not of quite the intellect I'd prefer in the POTUS.

NO *&^%$# Bush jokes are to be made.

[Dan Riehl]

"neo-American century?"

I simply meant another American Century of the future, when America looks different than it does today in the ways I suggested.

You say we have cheap labor today? Relative to us, yes. But not relative to cheap labor in the rest of the world. There's a dirty little secret to globalization, as the world globalizes, standards of living must become much more equitable. That's a necessary component of success.

So, there are two choices for America. Raise the standard of living for the world to ours, or lower ours to some mid-point. The good news is that the standard of living is already increasing in India and China. The bad news is that it will be a ling long time before it comes close to ours across the populations. And with China's current government, it'll never happen.

Where the balance ends up, I don't know, but it will remaina struggle to keep our own where it has been as globalization continues.

[Purple Avenger]

"and catering to Latino voters (the latter is futile)"

Until they become savvy to what the left ultimately wants. When moonbats become "offended" by the little religious statues and displays that Latinos love to put everywhere, you're going to see some electoral demographics changing in a big way.

The central/south American leftists have always been very circumspect about this in selling their ideology. American leftists are anything but circumspect and are stupid enough to barge on ahead and offend millions in the process.

[Layer Seven]

No, I don't believe we are at war with radical Islam.

As you point out, feminists are busy warring on Christians and cannot be bothered with radical Islam, yet.

Damascus would be seriously re-decorated, as would several hundred sites in Iran, if we were at war, by my definition. Instead, we dink around like Clinton. The time will come.

I think about 15%, or one in seven, of Islam qualifies as "radical;" meaning, ready for 72 virgins. Now, the women, too. (72 virgins; the epitome of narcissism and arrogance and stupidity).

I think religious Mexicans are wonderful, but the place votes (within an eyelash) socialist.

The other question, what happened to our alliance with Israel? I think it lives; but in the background.

[Layer Seven]

Dan, I don't believe in zero sum. Wages in China (Renminbi or $US) are skyrocketing. Same for India. Mexico is a huge problem that we should fix - but is open borders the way to fix it? It is the EASY solution, yes.

[Layer Seven]

Hey, Purple Avenger - That is what I wish - and so does Karl Rove, for he has advised the president of the same, is my guess. A sure thing? I think it is only a wish.

[Dan Riehl]

is open borders the way to fix it?

No, I don't believe it is and support regulated immigration with a controlled "closed" border. And I would have less issue with amnesty, PROVIDED we close the border first.

But will it happen? I don't know. It is going to be interesting to watch Bush and the Dems, along with a conservative Republican response.

The issue is dangerous for both parties given the splits.

[larry]

dan, you wrote that we "aren't going to wake up one day & find (all 3) countries merged". maybe. i'd like to believe it - after all, there's been no congressional debate on this, and i'd guess that 90% of all americans would be very much against this.

and yet.....we keep reading that some folks in the gummint ARE trying to do something similar to that. and much as i'd like to dismiss that as wild-eyed conspiracy talk, a tiny little something that happened recently makes me wonder. remember the asshole in the state department, fernandez? the scummy little puke who went on al-jazeera & told the arab world how inept and invasive we'd been? in flawless arabic? sure you do.

well, the blogosphere went nuts; conservatives were furious, etc etc. and now, 6 weeks later, we read that that state dept. is giving fernandez an award! (making him a *prize* asshole, i guess) "diplomat of the month" or some such, AND they're tossing in a $10,000 bonus.

now folks in the state dept aren't morons: lotsa multi-lingual ivy-league degreed weenies there, right? so they HAVE TO have known what a slap in the face this award would be to anyone with a brain. but they simply didn't care: they did it anyway. what will the peons do about it? revolt? please. it is to laugh.

a small but revealing look into the mindset of the globalists in the american foreign policy community, i say. if they'll do THAT - knowing it'll be publicized - what might they do under cover of darkness?

[Cameron]

Tancredo is and remains a crackpot, to attempt to rescue him by saying well given the flow of human history he may be on to something is pathetic. When crackpots like Tancredo are given enough rope they hang themselves. You want to do damage to your reputation continue to try and explain away his outrageous comments.

[larry]

interesting that a lefty describes a philosophy of 'wanting immigration law upheld'; and 'wanting the nation's borders defended' as "crackpot".

but then that's why we make fun of them. only one humane thing to do with moronic halfwits of that stripe: exploit them.

[Layer Seven]

Cameron, what are the outrageous comments of Tancredo, if you please?

[Layer Seven]

Larry, your comment about Fernandez of the State Department really hits the spot.

This tail is wagging the dog; but then it seems CIA does also. (Maybe Tancredo would clean these places out - it's long overdue).

[Purple Avenger]

"No, I don't believe we are at war with radical Islam."

Why? Do you not take them at their word as to what their goals and motivations are?

I do.

[Cameron]

First off, Larry: I am not some left wing moonbat, I'm a hard core, rock solid, Christian conservative, with strong libertarian leanings. It is intolerant louts and loud mouths like you completely incapable of compromise that have caused the debacle that was the last midterm elections. Idiots like you questioning the conservative purity of conservatives who do not see immigration as a threat to the very existence of the nation. You people are nothing more then thinly disguised bigots, and the Republican party and those of us that want to see it succede need to renounce fools like you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50657

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.

Now Layer Seven, does not this not give you pause?

[Cameron]

I'm not a very good writter but this SC&A vent sums up my thoughts on you Larry and the others like you.

Let's get real about immigration. The same cheap ass bigotry that is
on display today in much of the right wing blogosphere, predates you.
That's right- your high minded bigotry, couched as 'concern,' is
nothing new.

When the Irish Catholics came off the boat in New York, escaping from
famine and certain death, high minded Americans beat the crap out of
them because the freakin' Catholic papist evil bastards were going to
ruin the country.

When the Italians and the Jews got off the boat in New York, there
were those who met them at the docks and welcomed them with baseball
bats- literally. Why? Because the damn Jews and more papist evil
bastards Italians were going to ruin America. Later migrations of
other ethnic groups were met with similar experiences. If the welcome
in New York wasn't enough, that human flotsam that boarded trains to
middle America had it even worse. There was no 'neighborhood,' there
was not much of an immigrant community to find refuge. Immigrants to
these shores faced hatred and bigotry that was unimaginable. Some of
this fine and caring 'immigrant aid societies' sold children into
servitude in the midwest (Norman Rockwell never got around to painting
pictures of Italian and Irish kids being beaten and worked like farm
animals), to never again see their parents. There are countless,
similar stories, but they are irrelevant. The only saving grace this
country had is the truth that Europeans were even crueler and in other
parts of the world, the kafir was treated even worse.

Read the whole thing:

http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2006/05/sca-vent.html

[Buzzy]

Cameron, to a large degree the GOP renouncing and literally purging traditional small government, fiscally responsible, law and order conservatives from the party led to their losses this year. Guess it's good that some of you want the same thing the secular socialist progressive Democrats want because the GOP isn't going anywhere near power again without us and compromise is a two way street. President Bush and the Congress played a shell game with illegal immigration and a bunch of them got defeated a few weeks ago. In two years, if the lesson isn't learned there will be a lot more GOP politicians riding home in the cheap seats.

To me the entire issue is just as simple as illegal immigration and national sovereignty but the more I see people rabidly bashing Tancredo's questions about the NAU the more I want to see some answers. I like transparency in government and debate, has the new GOP rescinded that free speech thing lately?

You may call me a bigot, I'll just laugh because you don't even know who I am.

BTW, doesn't "strong libertarian leanings" usually translate to legalization of marijuana, heroin etc.?

[larry]

what excellent outrage there, cammy! what fire! what steel! the way you got your lip to curl as you manfully attacked my "bigotry"! all it lacked was the ringing ululation, "have you no shame, sir? have you no SHAME?!?"

but what the heck: maybe that one's been done to death.

despite all that, cammy, you still haven't managed to explain how a country (THIS country) expecting/wanting it's immigration laws to be followed; wanting it's immigration flow to be controlled; wanting it's borders to be defended and secure from external forces that may be hostile to us is somehow "bigotry". it seems to me that's all tancredo wants: for the border to be controlled. as to his calls for info on the trilateral agreement, why is that "crackpot"? hmmm? i make it a point to read what i sign, cami. don't you?

i grew up right on the mexican border: so i'll bet i'm a little more familiar on this than you are, cammy. MEXICAN immigration law can only be described as "harsh". MEXICAN law does not allow for an uncontrolled flow of illegal aliens into THEIR country. should someone suggest it, they'd be drummed out of politics instantly, and rightly so. were our country's immigration laws to mirror mexico, cammy, i believe you & those like you would have an attack of the vapours. (as to the notion of providing social services to those illegals, that's just laughable. why should mexico do that? it would only encourage MORE illegals, no?)

yet i hear no angry calls from idiot lefties for mexico to relax their laws. odd, that. only the US, it seems, should have to allow a flood of wetbacks. (no, that's not 'hate speech'. that's what US spanish speakers refer to them as: "mojados".)

until you can make some cogent argument as to why this country shouldn't defend its borders & control its immigration just like mexico does, cami, i say YOU'RE the bigot. i also say that yes, you ARE in fact, a lousy "writter". worse, your ideas are just as childish as your spelling.