Video: Fox News “keeping an eye” on the North American Union hysteria

posted at 10:19 pm on May 31, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s still Grade A, top choice, batshinola insanity, but I’m starting to see how listening to Bush might make you think it isn’t.


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s still Grade A, top choice, batshinola insanity…

Watch out AP, you’re fixin’ to get bashed by the truthers.

It’s gonna be worse than when you get trashed for Jesus bashing.

BacaDog on May 31, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Tancredo wants to have a word with you.

lorien1973 on May 31, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Hey, you know what, after the whole amnesty thing with Bush, it wouldn’t shock me.

amerpundit on May 31, 2007 at 10:33 PM

Oops. Forgot the sarc thingy after the Jesus thing, AP.

BacaDog on May 31, 2007 at 10:36 PM

The notion that there’s a conspiracy afoot to make it happen is batshinola, but just wait a couple of generations. It might just happen on its own through osmosis.

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 10:36 PM

We will keep an eye on it indeed.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 10:37 PM

What exactly is the difference between erasing the border or just granting amnesty to everyone who crosses it? I don’t see much difference at all. Dismissing the NAU is the equivalanet of denying the senate bill exists.

Resolute on May 31, 2007 at 10:42 PM

If we want to annex canada and mexico then I am all for it!
Imperialism Now!

liberrocky on May 31, 2007 at 10:47 PM

The groundwork for the inevitable is being laid before our eyes. It (Amnesty) is fracturing the republican party and It will break this country.

Our Health Care System our Education System, and our Political System all have looming expiration dates. 12 to 40 Million new “Citizens” with the right to vote and bring their extended families here and have them vote too. How long do you think it will take for the NAU stuff to become reality after that?

But keep saying “Insanity.” Makes you look S M R T

America1st on May 31, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Yes I meant S M R T. It is a Homerism : )

America1st on May 31, 2007 at 10:50 PM

The NAU is not annexation.

News2Use on May 31, 2007 at 10:50 PM

I’m OUTRAGED!

Steve LLamabutcher on May 31, 2007 at 10:50 PM

What exactly is the difference between erasing the border or just granting amnesty to everyone who crosses it?

*sigh* Here we go again.

You honestly don’t see the difference between lax immigration enforcement and abdicating sovreignity as a nation?

Maybe we’ll be lucky and Mexico and Canada will agree to adopt the Bill of Rights. //

BacaDog on May 31, 2007 at 10:57 PM

If we want to annex canada and mexico then I am all for it!
Imperialism Now!

liberrocky on May 31, 2007 at 10:47 PM

I say right on! If there is one thing the the last 150 years or so have shown, it is that Mexico isn’t ready for independence yet. Who knows? After a couple of generations as a US colony, Mexico could achieve its first actual civilization in centuries. (I’m sure we could get some pocket change for Canada too.)

dostrick on May 31, 2007 at 11:01 PM

The NAU is not annexation.

News2Use on May 31, 2007 at 10:50 PM

It’s not?

liberrocky on May 31, 2007 at 11:03 PM

If we want to annex canada and mexico then I am all for it!
Imperialism Now!

Are you kidding? Why would you possibly want either of those places? Canada is overrun with faux Frenchmen and, good lord, Mexico???

I’m still not all that averse to letting them have California back. Maybe Pelosi would have better luck pushing her crack legislative agenda in the Mexican parliament.

Blacklake on May 31, 2007 at 11:07 PM

I happen to think it’s true, and the national ID card is just part of the overall plan. And I’m not even a religious person.

SouthernGent on May 31, 2007 at 11:10 PM

It’s been 48 years since we stated up. The fiddy-state quarters are set to tap out in 2008, and I’ve started to get accustomed to those silvery little things shining me a new Rembrandt from time to time. I’d be happy to have a two bit piece painted up with a sombrero or a taco or a margarita jangling in my pocket, or even a puck-faced, beer-swilling moose if that’s what it came to.

54-40 or fight.

a4g on May 31, 2007 at 11:11 PM

Allahpundit chose the word “hysteria”

hysteria : state of extreme emotion: a state of extreme or exaggerated emotion such as excitement or panic, especially among large numbers of people

["hysteria" definition from Encarta]

As we can see from the definition above “hysteria” is certainly not an applicable description of this situation. But I’m willing to agree that a bit of hysteria might be in order.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Imperialism Now!

liberrocky on May 31, 2007 at 10:47 PM

Heh, but Putin said today that he’d fight our “imperialism”. He, Chavez and Ahmadinejad will see to it that we don’t exercise our “imperialistic instints”.

Condi will crawl up something in the Iranian ‘constitution’ and Mr. Bush will entertain Putin in Kennebunkport soon. Chavez can be left to his own for now, being busy tending to those radio stations and pacifist students.

Entelechy on May 31, 2007 at 11:13 PM

I’m all for a NAU if it’s done by military force against Canada’s and Mexico’s wishes.

If they’re for it, then I’m suspicious.

frankj on May 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

The NAU is not annexation.
News2Use on May 31, 2007 at 10:50 PM

It’s not?
liberrocky on May 31, 2007 at 11:03 PM

It’s not. My understanding is that the NAU would be a merger and by design, neither our sovereignty or our Constitution would survive.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Hah, North American Union. I’ll start to buy that nonsense when this country’s immigration policy is dictated by another country, or when the U.S government permits millions of illegals to gain citizenship.

V15J on May 31, 2007 at 11:18 PM

You honestly don’t see the difference between lax immigration enforcement and abdicating sovreignity as a nation?

There’s a difference alright. It begins with lax immigration enforcement and amnesty every 20 years or so. Toss in free market trading policies and pretty soon, you’ve got an American landmass that’s so blended together and integrated our kids definition of sovereignty will in no way resemble our own.

CliffHanger on May 31, 2007 at 11:21 PM

You honestly don’t see the difference between lax immigration enforcement and abdicating sovreignity as a nation?

BacaDog

You’re kidding right? A nation that can’t, or won’t control it’s borders or who it allows in has no sovereignty. Citizens of the US have every right to determine who comes here and when. It’s a right our leadership chooses to ignore. Immigration is not a right.

darwin on May 31, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Heck, a merge with Canada would be okay I suppose, if they worked a few things out first (like their surrender monkey attitude towards the radical Islamists).

But Mexico? Who the heck wants to merge with a country that’s so thoroughly corrupt, so immensely depressed, so awash in drug cartels and the rampant murdering that comes with it, that 10′s of MILLIONS of their own people won’t stay put?

SilverStar830 on May 31, 2007 at 11:23 PM

I can’t believe this thing still lives. But then, I thought trutherism would die out soon too. It goes to show that some people will choose to find conspiracy where none exists just to stir up the paranoid and the ignorant. I’m sure the leaders of all three nations have signed off on this behind the grassy knoll.

thedecider on May 31, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Is there a conspiracy to form an NAU to which we will relinquish our sovereignty? Of course not. England is still a soverign nation, although they pay 10 billion into the EU each year and have agreed to willingly let the EU make a great many trade, human rights, and civil liberties decisions for them… Using sovereignty as a strawman allows Allahpundit to call it batshinola. Can anyone here disagree that the bill in the Senate merges American and Mexican populations to a degree that could never be undone? Didn’t think so. So lets stop kidding ourselves. Stop listening to the smears and read about the formation of the EU. If you are not in favor of America entering into such a thing on our continent then recognize the efforts afoot to build a common market. Not this rancid hyperbole from both sides of the debate.

Theworldisnotenough on May 31, 2007 at 11:25 PM

“It could never be done by stealth.”

I’m still firmly in the batshinola camp, of course, but that statements’ being proved false these days, isn’t it?

see-dubya on May 31, 2007 at 11:27 PM

And overseas, back in the early seventies, we were constantly being told that the European Economic Community (it wasn’t called a “Union” then, for obvious reasons) was “nothing but a common sense approach to making it easier to trade between European member states, and that any suggestion that it would ever become more than that was pure, unadulterated, paranoid, batshit shinola.

Sorry AP, I don’t blame you for thinking that it’s crazy, to somebody who hasn’t seen it happen first hand it surely must seem paranoid, but I know exactly where that train is headed.

Fool me once, etc.

Misha I on May 31, 2007 at 11:28 PM

Hah, North American Union.

That’s right. You just go back to sleep now, it’s ok. Nothing to see here.

Is it not true that the European Union consists of several European countries who each still have their own elected governments? Why is it so difficult to fathom something similar happening here?

All we need is little more amnesty and perhaps another forty or fifty years. By then, we’ll have a mostly Hispanic population VERY friendly to this idea of a NAU of some kind.

Ahh, but what the hell. Most of us will be dead and gone so who cares?

Goodnight…

CliffHanger on May 31, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Immigration is not a right.

darwin on May 31, 2007 at 11:22 PM

That is so very true. And so few people understand that.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 11:29 PM

We can’t exactly say Bush has been working to keep our borders in place.

amerpundit on May 31, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Why take a chance with “grand conspiracy” when if you do nothing enough mainly Mexican Hispanics will migrate to merge Mexico and the United States anyway.
Canada could be internationalized enough by that time, who knows maybe a merge wouldn’t make much future difference.

I suppose some reform legislation could come along once in awhile that causes a huge ruckus that makes nothing seem more like a rest period than a time of advancing migration.

The natural progress continues unabated if we don’t force the the government to act not to introduce legislation to our detriment but instead in our deference.

Nothing is a solution if one world is the goal. Ala family Bush tradition.

Remanifest destiny must be made intolerable.
We must transform from defense to offense, legislation that forces action must become law.

Speakup on May 31, 2007 at 11:42 PM

But Mexico? Who the heck wants to merge with a country that’s so thoroughly corrupt, so immensely depressed, so awash in drug cartels and the rampant murdering that comes with it, that 10’s of MILLIONS of their own people won’t stay put?

SilverStar830 on May 31, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Can we at least steal their oil?

thirteen28 on May 31, 2007 at 11:45 PM

I’m still firmly in the batshinola camp, of course, but that statements’ being proved false these days, isn’t it?

see-dubya on May 31, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Yep… sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right out in the open. The guys running this show have a lot of experience at pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

Maxx on May 31, 2007 at 11:54 PM

There is no conspiracy. That tag was used to place the whole idea in a different realm of thinking. Like the first comment in this thread, anyone that takes what is happening to make the NAU plausible is one of those “truther” types. So, best not to even think about a NAU lest you be labeled a “truther”.

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment “to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security.” The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that “our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.” Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

We can’t exactly say Bush has been working to keep our borders in place.

amerpundit on May 31, 2007 at 11:34 PM

News2Use on June 1, 2007 at 12:05 AM

I’m still firmly in the batshinola camp, of course

Of course? Why of course? Does the practical application of the Senate not merge our population? Once our citizens are mixed to a degree that cannot be undone and our Southern border no longer applies to people what is the next step? What is so hard to believe?

Someone in Mexico beleives our economies are going to be heavily intertwined. Look at all the port projects. Do you think those goods are headed for Columbia?

Theworldisnotenough on June 1, 2007 at 12:14 AM

If you believe this BS, you’re no different from a truther, and you should/will be cast away from the political mainstream.

Baphomet on June 1, 2007 at 12:18 AM

I’ll just continue to state that there’s enough to this story that it should be watched closely. One shouldn’t dismiss it out of hand just as one shouldn’t buy into it completely. To ignore it all together would be foolish.

Benaiah on June 1, 2007 at 12:40 AM

You honestly don’t see the difference between lax immigration enforcement and abdicating sovreignity as a nation?

BacaDog

You’re kidding right? A nation that can’t, or won’t control it’s borders or who it allows in has no sovereignty. Citizens of the US have every right to determine who comes here and when. It’s a right our leadership chooses to ignore. Immigration is not a right.

darwin on May 31, 2007 at 11:22 PM

I have to agree with Darwin. Rather strongly.

If a nation can’t – or won’t – exercise the most basic facets of national sovereignty, I’m not sure its much different than an abdication of soveriegnty.

Wanna bet that if 20 million Americans suddenly decided to move south, illegally, without paying taxes, without going through an immigration process … the Mexicans might bring up their national soveriegnty?

Professor Blather on June 1, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Ah, well, no need to worry about converting Dollars to Ameros or getting run over by Mexican truck drivers….

Iran, Putin and China will probably nuke us before the NAU plans are completed.

LegendHasIt on June 1, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Michell has this link on her site. Funny stuff going down in Arizona?:

http://azbiz.com/lionel_waxman/

Seems the war may have already begun…

gmoonster on June 1, 2007 at 1:01 AM

That’s right. You just go back to sleep now, it’s ok. Nothing to see here.

Is it not true that the European Union consists of several European countries who each still have their own elected governments? Why is it so difficult to fathom something similar happening here?

All we need is little more amnesty and perhaps another forty or fifty years. By then, we’ll have a mostly Hispanic population VERY friendly to this idea of a NAU of some kind.

Ahh, but what the hell. Most of us will be dead and gone so who cares?

Goodnight…

CliffHanger on May 31, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Nice post.

And scary. It is kinda funny that anyone can look at recent European history and think it just can’t possibly happen here.

Professor Blather on June 1, 2007 at 1:05 AM

It’s all about the demographics!

gmoonster on June 1, 2007 at 1:10 AM

So, exit question…

What happens when every Mexican has dual citizenship with the US?

We’re workin on it folks…

Romeo13 on June 1, 2007 at 1:29 AM

It is comforting to see a fair and balanced report on the topic.

It is not comforting to see the words “evolution by stealth” in the documents Judicial Watch obtained from a 2006 North American Forum meeting.

It is a disgrace that GOP Sen. Richard Lugar introduced a border security bill in 2005 while pushing the current amnesty bill

SEC. 5. IMPROVING THE SECURITY OF MEXICO’S SOUTHERN BORDER

Yes, Mexico’s southern border must be secured. Forget about the US-Mexico border.

The current push for amnesty will probably die in spite of NAU fears.

NAU? Not today, but keep an eye on the power-grabbing liberal one-worlders.

They may be setting up a scenario where one day, an NAU might make sense.

They would have to destroy the country first by allowing a massive influx of left-leaning voters who work hard and making a trade infrastructure so powerful that the borders become irrelevant. They would never try to pass amnesty or build international superhighways controlled by foreign corporations, would they?

Valiant on June 1, 2007 at 2:09 AM

Considering Bush and his lapdog RINOs are proposing sealing the border of Mexico contingent on amnesty for illegals, I can see why many would see a North American Union actually happening. Someone needs to let Bush finally know what his job description is.

lynnv on June 1, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Forget all this merger crap.
Hostile Take Over!

Who is with me!

liberrocky on June 1, 2007 at 8:44 AM

Someone needs to let Bush finally know what his job description is.

I’m done with Bush… FOREVER, I’m sick of sticking up for that bafoon.

BadBrad on June 1, 2007 at 8:45 AM

Who is this guy kidding, no one can be found that supports the concept of a “North American Union”

BULL!!

My own father, a lifelone public school administrator by the way, has been talking about that very thing both in ptivate and public for years. I can only imagine how many of YOUR CHILDREN have been exposed to the same crap.

P. James Moriarty on June 1, 2007 at 8:49 AM

Lifelong, too pissed to type…..

P. James Moriarty on June 1, 2007 at 8:50 AM

“When you grow up in Texas like I did, you recognize the decency and humanity of Hispanics. And the truth of the matter is, a lot of this immigration debate is driven as a result of Latinos being in our country,” he said.

I would just like to know, who exactly is he talking to here? I personally have always liked the latinos as a whole, and thought they were a hard working group of people and I always thought they were a great addition to this country. Hell, before I got married I dated a couple of Latino guys. So I don’t understand who Bush is addressing when he says things like this. What I’m concerned with is, yes, what most everyone else on this thread seems to be concerned with, the sheer numbers of foreigners just waltzing in, with no respect for our laws, and no intention of assimilating to our culture. And a party who doesn’t seem concerned with enforcing the laws of this country and refuses to listen to the base of their party, instead are focusing on the extreme ones.

4shoes on June 1, 2007 at 9:00 AM

It’s about time the nation was one color again. I was tired of being labled as a ‘commie’ (a red in a blue state Hi.) thanks to CNN who choose to color the left blue (cool and hip) and the right (red and dead, or at least closed minded).

Having been on the left in college and having a flushback (oh I mean flashback) I realized what my misinformed (boomer) generation really needed was a sense of discipline to put it right-not another label so the blind left can more easily identify those that do not agree with them so they can avoid any confrontation with them.

MSGTAS on June 1, 2007 at 9:11 AM

It’s about time the nation was one color again. I was tired of being labeled as a ‘commie’ (a red in a blue state Hi.) thanks to CNN who choose to color the left blue (cool and hip) and the right (red and dead, or at least closed minded).

Having been on the left in college and having a flushback (oh I mean flashback) I realized what my misinformed (boomer) generation really needed was a sense of discipline to put it right-not another label so the blind left can more easily identify those that do not agree with them so they can avoid any confrontation with them.

MSGTAS on June 1, 2007 at 9:12 AM

There are already plenty of North American organizations, but they hold no real power, and they’ll never make the USA go away, or Canada go away.

The EU is not going to make Germany, or France or Italy, etc… go away either. I’m fairly certain there will be some sort of international conflict in Eurpoe in the next 50 years that will show just how impotent the EU is.

I expect a monetary crisis that drops the Euro within that time frame as well.

reaganaut on June 1, 2007 at 11:04 AM

There are already plenty of North American organizations, but they hold no real power, and they’ll never make the USA go away, or Canada go away.

The EU is not going to make Germany, or France or Italy, etc… go away either.

reaganaut on June 1, 2007 at 11:04 AM

We are not concerned that the lands would go away reaganaut, we are concerned that our freedom would go away. You remember these don’t you?

Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Or are you trusting that once sovereignty was lost, that the benevolent souls in power would automatically return these rights to us?

Maxx on June 1, 2007 at 12:56 PM

When the government has people whose only purpose nowadays seems to be telling us not to look behind the curtain…

Freelancer on June 1, 2007 at 4:05 PM