Mark Steyn: Why Not Just Have Borders?
Print Friendly and PDF

With Bill Clinton and John Kerry promising/threatening the rest of us with their visions of a “borderless world,” Mark Steyn suggests an alternative to the coming Mad Max America of metal detectors, armed guards in every commercial establishment, and an all-seeing surveillance state:

From Conservative Review:

Filling in on the Rush Limbaugh radio show today, Mark Steyn made an incredibly salient point in the third hour about calls for increased security at night clubs, airports, etc.

“What we’re seeing now is something quite extraordinary,” Steyn said. “That borders, which are the organizing principle for the world, are bad for the world.”

“If there are no national borders, then you surely do have the right to defend yourself as an individual against the fact that the president has dissolved American sovereignty at the borders,” Steyn continued.

“It’s amazing to me,” he added. “I think this is insane when I listen to people say ‘oh, we’re now going to have to have metal detectors in night clubs, security in nightclubs. Ok, so what happens next? They blow up a bakery, they blow up a little pastry shop, so then you’re gonna have to have metal detectors to get into the pastry shop?”

“Instead of having all these individual perimeters around every Dunkin Donuts franchise or every gas station, or ever J.C. Penny, why not have just one big perimeter around the country?” Steyn concluded. “We could call it a border! And we could have, like, a border security!”

Where do extremists like Steyn come up with these crazy concepts like borders? The Clinton-Kerry mainstream understands the simple common-sense of a “borderless world.”

[Comment at]

Print Friendly and PDF