What else is there to add to these righteous sense-knockings?
First up: John Hawkins.
Now, you may be thinking that this whole theory is a little foggy and short on specifics — and you’d be right. It’s sort of like handing someone some cake mix, a frying pan, and 4 pine cones — and then saying you expect them to make clam chowder out of it in 30 minutes, but people are buying into the NAU by the thousands, so let’s just take the theory as we find it.
But that’s not all: Richard Reeb of the Claremont Institute piles on, in a post delicately titled “We’ve Got Our Nut Jobs Too“:
Last April at the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly (CRA) in Ontario, literature concerning the NAU was all over the place. People who cheered the President for his judicial appointments or staunch commitment to the war on the terrorists swallowed whole the insane idea that the the same man would betray his country for so banal an object. One particularly obnoxious speaker was one Stanley Monteith, a Santa Cruz-based broadcaster and political entrepreneur, who declared (I paraphrase here): “Your enemies are not some dangerous men abroad (e.g., Arab sheiks, Chi Com apparatchiks or Third World revolutionaries) but men in Washington, D.C., dressed in suits and working in government offices.” This was straight out of the old John Birch Society playbook, according to which the only real enemies of the United States are internal.
The notion that our lax border policy poses critical risks to American sovereignty is one thing, and it’s a concern I take very seriously.
This notion of mysterious shadowy bureaucrats meeting to usher in the NAU with George Bush’s blessing, however, is crazytalk. It hampers serious efforts to argue for border security by making the entire movement look like loons. Please, please, get over it, folks.