April 22, 2005
by Christopher G. Adamo
Among the greatest ironies of history is that during the first part of the twentieth century two World Wars and a “Cold War” were fought on the European continent, for the specific purpose of preventing its consolidation under one governing authority. Yet by the end of the century Europeans had acquiesced to just such a fate.
Though not imposed with the imperiousness of the Kaiser or the brute force of the Reich, the concept of the “European Union” runs contrary to traditional ideas of nationalism or patriotism. Such crass sentiments are the realm of commoners, thus making them counterproductive to the new order.
Nevertheless, the lowly masses were eventually bought off with glowing assurances of economic benefits and all of the standard empty promises of liberal utopianism. Predictably, the vast majority of the European Union’s “citizenry” continue to struggle, having been further mired by the malaise of that continent’s burdensome socialism, which is now driven by a vastly enlarged bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, though the overwhelming majority of Americans hold such concepts in complete contempt, similar anti-national thinking has nonetheless encroached upon its shores to a degree Islamic jihadists might envy.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once lamented that American military dominance was inherently unfair, and that the best remedy was to assist the advancement of competing military establishments in other countries. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Ginsburg have, in recent rulings, looked to the laws and governing philosophies of other nations for justification.
But while the majority of Americans do not embrace this contemptible thinking, neither do they stage mass protests in the wake of such court decisions, demanding the ouster of their authors, as would certainly have been the case only a few short years ago. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly evident that such alarming ideologies are not confined to those on the left.
Though the signs of a growing acceptance of this mindset have become glaringly obvious, most Americans remain reluctant to believe that their leaders would even contemplate the forfeiture of this nation’s sovereignty to such a degree. Yet the behavior of high placed individuals, including President Bush, raise extremely disturbing questions as to just how willing they might be to copy the Europeans.
Recently, Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez Baustista floated a “trial balloon” during a speech at the University of Texas, ominously revealing a possible answer. According to Baustista, Mexico and the United States should eventually become “integrated,” thus forming what can only be construed as the hub of a “North American Union,” no doubt eventually including Canada as well.
President Bush has indicated a disturbing sympathy towards such thinking, refusing to characterize Mexican immigrants as “illegal.” In contrast, he implies illegality by the “Minutemen” who now protect the border, having described them as “vigilantes.”
Conversely, he discusses the actions of the “undocumented immigrants” as “pursuing their dreams,” seemingly indifferent to the fact that Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of fulfilling those dreams, ultimately at the expense of their own.
On other crucial fronts, the President clearly shows a willingness to embrace policies that significantly weaken the nation’s borders. When dealing with Canada, he steadfastly advocates a beef import program that clearly puts the interests of Canadian beef producers ahead of their American competitors.
Thus he allows an influx of beef from the north that threatens to seriously degrade this country’s food supply. Though a financial boon to Canadian agriculture, it provides no incentives to enhance the quality of beef produced there while undermining the viability of American cattle growers.
Meanwhile, President Bush has been championing the “Law Of the Sea Treaty” (LOST), whereby seagoing Americans would henceforth be subject to a maritime version of the “International Criminal Court.”
The perceived “benefits” of this blurring of national boundaries might initially sound attractive, particularly to individuals whose primary impetus is monetary. But America stands to lose far more than it could ever hope to gain by compromising its freedom and independence.
Although indispensable to national security, an able military is not the key to a strong nation. Such strength lies within its culture. America cannot remain strong or great if it is overwhelmed by people who uphold neither its society nor its laws, but instead seek only after its wealth.
Despite the establishment of the “European Union” that continent’s vibrancy and greatness continue to decline as a result of its own cultural erosion. America may soon follow.
