In previous posts, I discussed allegations of an allegedly "secret" government plan to create a "North American Union" which would supposedly erase the borders between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

I now see that John Hawkins of Right Wing News has entered the fray, in a dramatic online debate with John Corsi, the man who's been sounding the alarm at World Net Daily and at Human Events (the latter hosting the current debate).

John Hawkins doesn't think there's much cause for alarm right now:

Let's cut to the chase here, folks: Corsi's articles amount to a great big sack of nothing. There's just no "there, there" to anything he's saying. I mean this stuff is so ludicrous that the sort of people who believe that the Trilateral Commission secretly controls the whole world would look at it and go, "No, that's just too far fetched."

The President simply cannot arbitrarily combine the US with Mexico and Canada. Even if he could, Bush isn't going to be in office in 2010. Do you think President George Allen or President Newt Gingrich is just going to walk into the Oval Office, see a plan on his desk that says, "US/Mexico/Canada Merger," and go, "Well, it is on the desk, so I guess we'll have to do it." It would take a complete rewrite of the Constitution to make this work, which has absolutely no chance of happening.

All that Corsi has stumbled onto here are a few bureaucratic documents describing how we're going to better cooperate with our neighbors on issues like trade and security, no different than you'd see anywhere else in the world where neighboring nations are trying to get along. It's not frightening, it's not scary, and it's not going to lead to an "Amero" or a "Super State." Take it from someone who has soundly thrashed George Bush's position on immigration, who has defended the Swifties time and time again, and who also writes for Human Events: Corsi's series of articles are completely and utterly without merit.

I think Corsi's argument elevates paranoia over substance. The fact that "working groups" have been formed does not mean anything in the legal sense, because they have no power to do anything.

What I think is going on is hobnobbing by utopian globalists, which has been uncovered by people who are crying wolf. However, I think it's important to remember that that does not mean that there might not be a wolf in the future.

Lots of gun owners, for example, are indignant about the UN's plan for international gun control, and for now, John Bolton is preventing the United States from entering into any treaty which would violate the Second Amendment. The present ineffectiveness of a conspiracy does not negate the existence of a conspiracy, and the powerlessness of conspirators does not negate their existence.

And just because a group of utopian globalists can't erase the border does not mean that this is not their plan. They'll keep trying. And I imagine that the blogosphere will keep watching.

In this respect, the neat thing about the blogosphere is its sheer size, and uncontrollable nature. What that means is the obsolescence of the old "boy who cried wolf" principle. In the old days, a boy could cry wolf once, maybe twice, and then eventually, no one would pay any attention if on the third occasion he turned out to be right.

WorldNetDaily, for example, often strikes me as the boy who simply will not stop crying wolf, because he's now grown into a professional wolf-crier. (I called them on at least one prediction I can remember, and I'm ever-skeptical.)

But with the blogosphere, hordes of highly motivated analysts are now there to go over every detail of every boy's cry of wolf. If it turns out that a cry of wolf happens to be right, and that is verified by a blogger, even if the blogger is small and insignificant, his verification of the wolf cry will now be noticed, and will tend to work its way up whatever blog heirarchy might exist at the time.

Every cry of wolf can now be heard, analyzed, debunked. Or taken seriously when necessary.

I think it's cause for optimism, and I think it's worth remembering that there's more than one moral lesson in the story of the boy who cried wolf.

"Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

(These nobody bloggers, of course, have the time to evaluate every lie. And every potential truth.)

UPDATE: Speaking of global utopianism (which in this case is not paranoia at all) David Kopel reports that the UN gun-grabbing conference has ended in failure for the UN, and victory for the Second Amendment:

Today's victory is extremely important, but it should not be mistaken for a final victory in the international arena. The international gun prohibition lobbies are already looking towards other international fora where they can advance their goals, including their ultimate prize--a binding treaty requiring severe restriction of citizen gun possession. The various U.N. departments which have been providing funding and propaganda for gun prohibition and confiscation will almost certainly continue to do so.

For now, everyone who cares about the right to arms has much to celebrate.

Kopel notes that things could have gone very differently with a different president. And they'll be back.

So will the blogosphere.