The Nation-State Is Finished

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

[B4Ranch]

PING for discussion

[William McKinley]

The nation-state is obsolete, eh? Good to see the author has channelled Strobe Talbot.

[DoctorMichael]

Good article. I am fearful of this One-Worlder crap being shoved down the throat of an unsuspecting American public without any debate or assent (vote) of the American people whatsoever. If all the above is true, then there are some shadowy hands moving pieces around the board (and I usually don't go in for this tinfoil stuff).

[B4Ranch]

The protection of national sovereignty cannot exist with uncontrolled open borders. That is the situation that the United States legislation is currently permitting.

[Biblebelter]

This is an outstanding article. Our nation is under attack. It is just not by Islamic terrorists. The dedicated purpose of these United States is in a single word independence. How can a nation be independent without its sovereignity? How can you even have a nation without clearly understood borders? The invasion of the illegals on one hand and the export of jobs on the other hand serve the same purpose of destroying the structure and foundation on which our nation exists.

My fondness for Mr. Bartley and his editorial page rest upon one issue and one issue only. They knew that there was a serial rapist in the White House and of all the so called media elite they alone attempted to bring the American people the facts surrounding the criminality that defined the Clintons.

[theFIRMbss]

>I am fearful of this One-Worlder crap being shoved down the throat of an unsuspecting American public without any debate or assent (vote) of the American people whatsoever

Damn, was I sleeping
when we the people voted
to join the UN?!

[KC_for_Freedom]

He would like to see a detailed plan for speeding the border jumpers to full citizenship.

We supported Forbes in his flat tax initiative until it became clear that border control was not in his plans. We thought Pat Buchanan had the right border idea, but could not get with the rest of his program. We know Bush to be a man of character and compassion. And better than a Kerry by a mile but we better have this discussion in the halls of congress before this goes any farther.

One solution would be to annex Mexico and establish a well controlled border at Guatamala. (Mexico has already done this for us.) We could create about ten states who would likly vote for a constitutional ammendment to protect marriage, immigration would be free, but would go both ways and as US capital went sought to create wonderful warm weather locations for retirees and US schools and rule of law replaced what passes for same in Mexico, the need for immigration would finally be ended. The losers would be the corrupt elites of Mexico and the socialist elites here in the states.

[Thisiswhoweare]

"There is no need for Americans to wait 40 years to find similar documentation of official lies and deception by the Clinton and Bush administrations concerning the FTAA plan to merge the Americas. By then it would be too late. "

FTAA will be enacted in January of 2005, after which we will no longer have the ability to regulate ourselves, our borders and our trade. Meanwhile, our alledgedly conservative Republican leadership is playing around with things like the Defense of Marriage Act.

We argue the emotional hot-button conservative issues while the foundation of the republic itself is lost to the stroke of a pen.

[Prodigal Son]

Interesting solution.

[theFIRMbss]

>Damn, was I sleeping/when we the people voted/to join the UN?!
>> Don't be foolish. Joining the UN did not mean we agreed to give up our sovereignty.

I know. My point was
on some issues, our "leaders"
don't care how we'd vote . . .

[EGPWS]

"The European experience with integration has much to teach North American policymakers,"

What is learned however can be used for the betterment of our country in many different ways, more than just mimicking the European "experience".

[B4Ranch]

One solution would be to annex Mexico and establish a well controlled border at Guatamala. (snip)

The losers would be the corrupt elites of Mexico and the socialist elites here in the states.

I would much prefer that you gather up some of the poor English speaking folks in your own neighborhood and take them under your financial wing.

Annexing a country that doesn't share so much as a language commonality with us would be worse than having your mother in law inspecting, issuing the standards, the guidelines and approving your sexual habits with your wife. You would need an attorney and a term translator to understand what your mother in law was ordering.

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.

No Thank You, that is a solution which America cannot afford.

[jpsb]

"We supported Forbes in his flat tax initiative until it became clear that border control was not in his plans"

Source?

[B4Ranch]

The European experience with integration has resulted in a few countries showing the door to their illegal aliens who are not contributing to their society.

That is an experience which our globalist leadership isn't willing to consider yet.

[tacticalogic]

The New Deal writ large?

[EGPWS]

The European experience with integration has resulted in a few countries showing the door to their illegal aliens who are not contributing to their society.

With integration however comes a mingling of Dogma, and with such a mingling with the USA could mean a degradation of such. Unless of course one feels there are faults in our Dogma relative to other existing Dogmas.

[tacticalogic]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Beyond that, what do you consider our Dogma?

[B4Ranch]

"FTAA will be enacted in January of 2005, after which we will no longer have the ability to regulate ourselves, our borders and our trade."

I found it amazing that so many middle aged Americans of average intelligence supported NAFTA merely because their senators said to do so.

Am I amazed again that these same people are supporting The Free Trade of the Americas Act because our President say to do so? Astonishingly, yes I am!

What will it take for them to comprehend that this is exactly the same as opening our front and back doors to looters? While watching the initial days during our conquerance of Baghdad, I said to my wife, "That is what's happening in the US with the illegal immigrants. Freely gathering up everything they want, while we continue to push more free goods at them. Some day someone will get the bill for this 'good neighbor attitude" and find out we have overspent our budget." She just nodded her head, and agreed saying, "Yes, it will be us and the kids who will get stuck with the bill for the generosity of our liars, oops, leaders."