Patriotic Noises, Treasonous Realities. The United States is marching toward the edge of a cliff, and the Marine Band is keeping the pace brisk with an energetic rendition of "The Stars and Stripes Forever". Perhaps that should be renamed "The Stars and Stripes For Now", because this country is headed toward disaster.
+
(This is a theme I plan to revisit frequently over the next few months, dealing in detail with one small piece at a time, of a very large problem. But I cannot spend too much time on any given day, because I'm not getting paid for this, and I need to devote more time to personal finances. Let me, today, simply draw the broad outlines of the problem. This problem affects me personally, as it does many others. I have been interested in media most of my life, but to find work in broadcast journalism, I would have to compete with a host of foreigners, even for local radio spots. WINS, a New York-based all-news station, employs some guy with an Australian or lower-class British accent as a traffic reporter! Traffic! Why do we need a foreigner to tell us about local traffic? If I or unemployed American actors or actresses wanted to find work doing voiceovers for television commercials, we'd have to compete with Brits, Australians, Canadians, and other foreigners — there are dozens of commercials nowadays with British accents — who are somehow allowed in to take jobs away from Americans in an industry, acting, that has an unemployment rate in excess of 60%! The National Endowment for the Arts says, "In 1980 only 26 percent of musicians received all of their income from performing arts work, as against 32 percent of [people the NEA classes as] actors". That means that 68% of actors can't find full-time work in their field. Yet, we're still letting actors into this country from all over the world. Why?)
+
The United States prides itself, and is roundly criticized abroad, for its strong nationalism, which seems at times to pass over the line into jingoism. The reality, however, is that large segments of the leadership of the United States are so globalist that they are effectively treasonous.

• Our foreign policy is controlled by Israel.
  
• Our largest retailer is in league with Communist China.
  
• Companies with names like "America Online" have shipped off their technical support operations to India.
  
• Our movies are made in Canada, Britain, and New Zealand, with top roles taken by foreigners.
  
• Our domestic media are shot-thru with foreigners in some of the most prestigious, influential, and best-paid jobs to be had.
  
• Our advertising is filled with British accents, and indeed it seems as tho
  Hollywood has moved to England. From Narnia to Harry Potter to Nanny McPhee to The New World and Alexander and Troy and Gladiator, and on and on and on, American films are filled with British accents. American actors have to put on British accents if they are to find work in their own film industry, in order to portray ancient Romans, medieval Germans, Spanish conquistadors, or any other nationality whatsoever. All the world in all eras spoke with British accents, we are to believe, because, you see, American accents aren't good enuf for American films.
  
• Marine One, the helicopter of the President of the United States, is soon to be European!
  
• Some places, like New York City, allow resident aliens to vote in school-board elections, and some ultraliberals are arguing that our historic principle of "no taxation without representation" requires us to allow all resident aliens to vote in all elections.
  
• We even, now, hear loud noises coming from supposed conservatives to change the Constitution to permit current citizens born abroad to become President.
  

The premise behind all these phenomena, and more, seems to be that we can give to foreigners every single job that now exists in this country and we will just make more and keep on truckin'. We can ship all manufacturing operations abroad and still be secure that the equipment we need to defend ourselves or keep our economy moving will always be there. And we can slash wages, cut benefits, and end pensions to compete with the poorest workers in the world, but Americans will still enjoy a high standard of living that is the envy of the world.
+
To date, according to the AFL-CIO, the United States has already shipped some 3.7 million jobs abroad, and another 14 million are at risk. We don't need them, say the globalists. They were old jobs in old industries in the old economy. Oh? Tech support call centers are old jobs in old industries? Computer programming is part of the old economy?
+
I have said here before and say now again: it is not possible for the United States to compete in worldwide free trade without catastrophe. That is, we cannot possibly compete in total free trade without total collapse of our economy and standard of living. We can compete if we chop the wages and benefits of our employees to a fraction of their current level and consign ourselves to work until we die, but why would we do that? So the rich can reap obscene profits and feel good about their wonderful lives because everyone else is miserable, that's why. That's not a good reason.
+
In addition to exporting jobs, we are also importing labor to take jobs away from us here at home. Lou Dobbs of CNN harps on massive movement across our southern border by people who take many of the worst jobs in the Nation. Who, however, complains about the best jobs in this country being taken by foreigners? (Among such jobs are a whole bunch at Dobbs's own network. CNN is filled with on-air employees who are unembarrassed to speak with thick British-style accents.)
+
Let's look at three jobs: movie star, broadcast reporter, and corporate CEO. I can see Nicole Kidman being hired to play an Australian or even Briton. But why was a foreigner hired to play an American housewife in Bewitched? Was there really no American actress who could play an American housewife brilliantly? Is it inconceivable that American actors could fill any role now given to foreigners at least as well as the foreigners now hired?
+
After network news anchor, perhaps the most prestigious job in all of American broadcasting is White House correspondent. CBS News's chief White House correspondent is John Roberts, a Canadian. Why?
+
When Ted Koppel (born in Britain) retired from his spot as anchor of ABC News Nightline, ABC revamped its format to three co-anchors, one of them Martin Bashir, a British journalist of Pakistani ancestry.
+
Even the Chief Executive Officer is a foreigner in many major "American" corporations.

In the same way that U.S. companies look abroad for new customers, they seek new executive talent.

That has resulted in a virtual melting pot of CEOs across the U.S. corporate workplace: Pharmacia president and CEO Fred Hassan hails from Pakistan. Alcoa boasts a Moroccan CEO, as does Eli Lilly. In fact, 11 of that drug maker's top 22 executives are foreign-born. NCR, Coca-Cola, Goodyear, Kellogg, and Philip Morris are only a few of the many other leading American corporations with foreign-born bosses.

CEOs from nearly 100 foreign countries run American companies today. According to Tom Neff, chairman of the recruiting firm Spencer Stuart, the number of foreign-born CEOs in U.S. companies has risen nearly four times in the past six years.

"It shows that markets are more global, boards are more open, and there is more talent outside the United States," says Neff. "What's more, American workers have become more receptive to foreign-born bosses, and shareholders like the lower pay packages demanded by European and Asian talent. * * *

[An Indian observer] argues that with a few exceptions, this approach to leadership is unique to the U.S., which boasts, in his view, the best crop of corporate leaders. In contrast, his home country of India has a rigid caste system that makes it tough for some very qualified people to attain leadership positions. "The meritocracy in the U.S. corporate workforce has led many of the best people to leave their countries and come [to the U.S.]," he says.

The article excerpted above, by one David Lipschultz, appeared in The Chief Executive of January 2002. If the phenomenon cited had quadrupled in the six years before 2002, what has it done in the four years since?
+
So pronounced is the shift in loyalties of major transnational corporations based in the United States, indeed, that the same organization, the Chief Executive Group, that published the article excerpted above, published a "Commentary: The Quiet Debate Among CEOs: Are We American Companies or Not?" just a month ago.
+
In short, some very highly placed and powerful men in corporate leadership have absolutely no loyalty to the United States. But that does not explain why our government should be actively or passively subverting our future. State governments are sending jobs overseas!
+
And what they're not shipping abroad, companies and governments are giving away to immigrants, even in fields in which we have high unemployment of well-qualified, native-born citizens.
+
Even if we might have difficulty finding native citizens to pick lettuce or work in sweatshops, surely there are lots of Americans willing to take corporate management positions. Why are so many foreigners allowed into this country to take away our best jobs?
+
Is it really conceivable that of 300 million Americans, none could do as good a job as these foreign CEO's? Or is it that Americans wouldn't work as cheap?
+
Not content with shipping millions of American jobs abroad, the champions of the Republicrat New World Order are now allowing non-Americans by the million to flood into this country and take ever more millions of jobs away from Americans in their own country. If the lowest-paid jobs and the highest-paid jobs are taken by foreigners abroad or at home, what is left to the rest of us? What will hard work and sacrifice net us if an inexhaustible supply of foreigners exists to undercut us?
+
In the one area where major corporations should be hiring foreigners for the top job, they're not. The American auto industry (well, that part that has not yet been bought by foreigners), is headed by Americans, who somehow cannot create the corporate culture that produces high-quality, competitively priced, extremely reliable cars that Japanese and European automakers long ago created. (The one major "U.S." automaker that is doing well is Chrysler, which was bought by Daimler-Benz, a German company, in 1998.) If the U.S. auto industry must become much more rigorous about quality, why has it not hired the top Japanese auto executives to change the mindset of American carmakers? I'd be okay with that (tho not with some Japanese silliness, such as quasi-militarist, forced, group calisthenics in the morning). Ford did, for a while, have a foreign CEO, Lebanese-born and Australian-raised Jacques Nasser. But Lebanon and Australia are not the world's leaders in automobile manufacture, and Nasser didn't do a good enuf job, so was ousted. Meanwhile, Japan continues to dominate the quality lists of cars sold in the United States. Why doesn't GM or Ford buy its Japanese rivals or steal away their top management? That might make some sense. But the bulk of the shifting of jobs from Americans to foreigners makes no sense for this country at all.
+
I am utterly and absolutely opposed to free trade and open immigration from countries that remain independent of the United States. I am an Expansionist: if foreign countries want access to our market and our jobs, let them join the Union, end their independence, and assume the responsibilities as well as benefits of citizenship. That is the way to promote world integration, because that would subject all areas that gain access to our market and our jobs to our standards of pay, benefits, working conditions, worker rights, environmental protection, political freedom, and social mobility. The people employed in those other geographic areas by our corporations would pay taxes to our shared government, enlist in our military, and contribute to our society rather than subvert it.
+
It doesn't help that future for people like Lou Dobbs to say, very publicly, "We love Canada [as an independent country]. We love Canada." Let's love Canada, sure, but as a region of the United States, which it should long ago have become. As an independent country, Canada is a thorn in our side, a constant source of immigrants taking jobs away from Americans, as tho of right — immigrants who mostly refuse to become U.S. citizens. And why should they take U.S. citizenship if they can abandon their country but pretend to be remaining faithful to it?
+
Canadian independence with free access to our market is destructive of U.S. industry and dangerous to our security, since Canada's foreign-policy attitudes and lax immigration and refugee policies allow entry to very questionable people who can then live close to an almost unwatched border. Lou Dobbs opposes a North American security perimeter with free movement of people within it but separate national units for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. He apparently can't wrap his mind around a different, and far better future, however: a united North America in which there is only one country and one citizenship for one great market, all within a single security perimeter. And an even wider union? Beyond considering.
+
We should be joining many compatible countries together within the structure of the United States, which has succeeded in merging 15 separate countries already (the original Thirteen States, which could have gone their own separate ways, plus the former Kingdom of Hawaii and Republic of Texas). That is globalization that makes sense and benefits everyone. So to India, China, Mexico, Canada, Britain, New Zealand, and every other place now raiding our economy I say: Join the Union — or stay the hell away from us and leave our jobs alone.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 2,217.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 5:00 PM