Posted on 01/09/2007 8:27:45 AM PST by jmc813
I’m greatly encouraged by the lengthy, indignant responses by prominent scare-mongers Joe Farah and Jerome Corsi to my on-air and on-blog denunciation (“Shame on Demagogues for Exploiting ‘North American Union’!”, 12/28) of their self-promoting paranoia regarding an alleged conspiracy to merge the US, Canada and Mexico. The defensive tone of their commentary suggests that these two have been appropriately embarrassed: Farah, in particular, dramatically deescalated his rhetoric.
While previous commentary on WorldNetDaily prominently and regularly featured the noun “plot” in defining this non-issue, his answer to my purposefully harsh attack omits that key word entirely and uses language in a vastly more responsible and rational style. If I can push an influential (and often insightful) journalist like Farah back toward reasoned debate and the mainstream, then I’ve already succeeded in my chief goal: to prevent conservatives from following self-interested Pied Pipers off a cliff into conspiracist cuckoo land.
I’m particularly gratified at the way that Farah worded his “Daily Poll” on this issue. He posed the question: “What do you make of the talk about the North American Union?” and offered only two alternatives (out of nine) that agreed with the lunatic alarmists on the subject. Those two choices declared: “The evidence keeps mounting. When will people stop being in denial?” and “Plans for a union are an absolute reality, and anyone who can’t see concerted attacks on U.S. sovereignty is blind.” Please note that in declaring “the evidence keeps mounting,” this response never specifies what, exactly this “evidence” is supposed to prove. Similarly, the statement that “plans for a union are an absolute reality” never suggests who it is who is making those plans. If the plans (not “plots” this time) for a North American Union are coming from forces on the left as marginal as the fringies on the right who worry about such shcemes, then there is, indeed, no reason for fear.
Amazingly enough, Farah himself supports this reassuring perspective in his muddled attempt to defend his previous hysteria. He identifies one Robert Pastor “as the man at the very center of the plans for a North American Union.” Pastor is a loony leftist, slightly unhinged professor at American University who was an enthusiastic supporter (and informal advisor) to John Kerry’s Presidential juggernaut--- and who bears no connection whatever to the Bush administration, or the dreaded Security and Prosperity Partnership. If an addled academic with zero power in the government and no clout whatever with the current administration is “the man at the very center of the plans for a North American Union” do those plans really sound so menacing and dire and imminent?
Moreover, even Professor Pastor (in an interview with NAU demagogue-in-chief Jerome Corsi, as quoted by Farah) specifically denies any desire for a North American Union. “Each of the proposals I have laid out represent (sic) more than just small steps,” Pastor proclaimed. “But it doesn’t represent a leap to a North American Union or even to some confederation of any kind. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.” (Italics added)
I know that paranoids and conspiracy connoisseurs will seize on the last three words “at this stage” and scream, “Aha! The dreaded Pastor—the evil academic who’s the architect of the whole diabolical scheme – is suggesting at some later stage it WILL be plausible, necessary, or even helpful to contemplate a North American Union!”
But please, friends, consider this: if even the lefty professor who is considered the most dangerous plotter and visionary on the prospect of US-Mexican-Canadian merger explicitly denies any interest whatever in even contemplating that scheme at this stage, does it really make any sense—any sense at all – to frighten the public into believing that there is a current, powerful mass movement on behalf of such plans?
That’s the essence of my impassioned concern with the demagoguery on this subject: by focusing concern on a non-existent threat, people like Farah and Corsi take attention away from the very real dangers posed by the liberal ideologues who have taken over both houses of Congress.
There are open, undeniable, widely supported plans from the Democratic leadership to cripple the country in our war against Islamo-Nazis, to undermine our security agencies in the name of “constitutional rights,” to raise taxes, to punish productivity, to grow government, to undermine the traditional family, to nationalize health care, to force us all out of our cars (and onto useless mass transit) and to push through precisely the sort of immigration policies that most conservatives will absolutely hate. These plans demand a united Republican Party and a re-energized conservative movement that isn’t distracted and paralyzed by non-existent threats concerning non-existent plans to terminate the independent survival of the United States. (“PREMEDIATED MERGER: How Leaders are Stealthily Transforming USA into North American Union” reads one typical and current Farah headline.)
This is a fateful moment for the conservative moment that Barry Goldwater launched and that Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and, yes, George W. Bush led to some significant triumphs. For the first time since Clinton first came to power 14 years ago, we are definitely in opposition --- coming out of our “thumpin’” in the 2006 elections, all the momentum and energy in Washington has currently shifted to the Democratic side. The next few months will help to determine whether Republicans and conservatives will fight the good fight over issues that matter or dissipate all chance of a return to power through in-fighting, defeatism and self-marginalization. Given the stakes involved with some of the current battles in Washington and around the world, how can any grownup, responsible activist justify focusing on black-helicopter-style threats like the border-dissolving, sovereignty-ending North American Union –- which no elected leaders of administration officials have ever endorsed?
Where, in the past, have conservatives succeeded in building majorities by concentrating on “secret plans” and “high level plots” by their fellow Republicans?
And this brings me to the unfortunate Jerome Corsi, who felt the need in his response to my scorn to bring up some long-ago misunderstanding between us in which he believed I had charged him with anti-Semitism. As I communicated to Corsi in a telephone conversation, I did not recall making that charge on the air and I still don’t believe I ever attacked him in that manner. If I had even hinted at Jew-hatred on Corsi’s part I was willing to apologize, I said.
But now that he’s brought up the long-dead matter once again, I went to the trouble of looking up some of his controversial (and profoundly embarrassing) internet postings from FreeRepublic.com that were publicized in 2004. One of them (03/04/2004) attacked “John F**ing Commie Kerry” as follows: “After he married TerRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? (sic). He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”
Given the fact that neither Kerry nor his wife (either wife, for that matter) ever practiced any form of Judaism (or “Judi-asm”, which might be a form of Judi worship), and given the fact that Theresa Heinz Kerry has never had any connection whatever to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, and given the fact that Kerry himself has been a well-advertised, professing Catholic all his life, doesn’t Corsi’s snide little comment about Kerry’s “reverting” to the faith from which his paternal grandparents converted, give off unmistakable, fetid whiffs of anti-Semitic obsession?
In the same series of comments he also wrote of the beloved and revered Pope John Paul II: “Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press” (03/03/2003) and “We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that’s probably about it.” (12/16/2002).
And now this same angry, venomous, irresponsible figure wants to be taken seriously when he warns of the looming, desperate danger of North American Union. He insists that he is utterly disinterested and selfless in promoting this grand conspiracy theory--- but then the final line of his posting gives the lie to this preposterous pose. That line announces about Mr. Corsi: “He will soon author a book on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the prospect of the forthcoming North American Union.”
I have no desire whatever to help him promote his latest book which is why I won’t invite him as a guest to debate these issues on my radio show. If he wants to call in (with other members of the public) to make whatever points he chooses to make, he’s welcome to do so on the one national talk show that identifies itself as “Your Daily Dose of Debate” and we’ll move him to the front of the caller line. The phone number, Mr. Corsi (toll free, by the way) is 1-800-955-1776.
And concerning his challenge to me to debate him publicly and formally over his poisonous obsession over phantom dangers, I’ve never in my life turned away from a rhetorical challenge, and I’m not about to do so now. If Corsi wants a debate (over a non-issue that I don’t believe is even worthy of serious discussion) I’m willing to join him if he arranges an appropriate venue and I can participate without incurring debilitating travel or personal expense.
If this sort of confrontation can flush out fringe-figures like Jerome Corsi from the dank, turgid conspiracist fever-swamps he chooses to inhabit, it may perform an important hygienic purpose in returning the conservative movement to the robust health it needs for the serious battles that lie ahead.
Sorry if you weren't the instigator. I was responding to your post in #84.
You're just making to much sense.
Opposing Bush on anything, is not to be tolerated, no matter by whom, no matter how deserved. Bottom line, period.
Looks like the same goes for the former Pope.
No Pope has ever been "okay with boy buggering." Given your previous comment about "Vatican revenue streams," though, I don't suppose you have a very charitable view of the Roman Catholic Church.
Nonetheless, Corsi's statement was false, and if he is the Catholic he claims to be, he KNEW it was false. That makes him a liar.
No "practicing Catholic" would make that accusation. Especially not in those terms. Corsi sounds more like a lapsed Catholic to me. Someone who was raised a Catholic, and probably went to Catholic school, but doesn't go to church any more. That's not the same thing as a pro-abortion wife-sawpping CINO like John Kerry, but it's not the same thing as practicing Catholic.
Like chilling old claret or beating someone else's wife, it's just not done in the best circles.
"...does it really make any sense—any sense at all – to frighten the public into believing that there is a current, powerful mass movement on behalf of such plans?"
Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
You should note that I mentioned that Jefferson changed from that naive utopianist. Of course, Idealists are not always confined to the liberal ranks. However, it is generally expected that a conservative will be closer to reality...trying to conserve it..., rather than given to imaginations thereto.
I fondly remember one of the sayings that Reagan liked to repeat:
"A conservative is a liberal who got mugged the other day."
Jefferson got mugged.
The average Mexican spends more money on US imports than the average American spends on Mexican imports
Even if that were true, of what conceivable relevance?
And the actual trade deficits with Mexico, and Canada respectively set records that blow away the "record" export claims...and the implied "average" purchase comparison. As for those claimed averages, consider these numbers reported last year by the U.S. Census Bureau:
The 2005 deficit with Canada ($76.5 billion), exports to Canada ($211.3 billion), and imports from Canada ($287.9 billion) were records.The 2005 deficit with Mexico ($50.1 billion), exports to Mexico ($120.0 billion) and imports from Mexico ($170.2 billion) were records.
Who would want to join with or annex Mexico with all its problems? The place is starting to look like Columbia.
Um, it's you who is wrong. The trade deficit with Mexico look alarming until you realize that there are 300mm Americans, and only 100mm Mexicans.
Here's my own Reagan quote:
"Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize ... the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations." -Ronald Reagan
Empirically, it is precisely the reverse of this. Indeed, the problem all during the Republican protectionist era was an embarassment of tax revenue.
And once U.S. manufacturing is divested, that is when you really will see things become subsequently "more expensive".
As for driving exporters "out of business," that is ridiculous. U.S. companies always had the vast internal free market of the United States itself. The exports were merely gravy.
And the deficit facts make clear that the substitution of a domestic free market, to an almost completely unprotected one in exchange for the promises of fantastic "global markets" has proven to be a complete chimera. A false hope. And a sadly deluded one at that.
Phyllis Schafley)sp? Has written some of the same things about The TTC and the North American Union. I wonder why Medved hasn't criticized her?
False.
The trade deficit with Mexico look alarming until you realize that there are 300mm Americans, and only 100mm Mexicans.
It is actually more alarming still when you consider that we used to have an outright surplus. Your "diminution" by "proportion" doesn't change the facts, that on average, the U.S. citizen...as is his society... is now running in the red. And the impacts on affected groups, resulting in negatives for the "median" are still more pronounced.
It is good of you to quote Ronald Reagan, he was a crafty one. Nothing wrong with trying to open up foreign markets. Trade reciprocity with other high-paying countries is clearly a good deal. Adam Smith-approved.
But trade-war mercantilist states and governmentally-structured slave-wage nations are another story. Reagan often used Fair trade in the very same breath as he used free trade. Just what do you think it meant to him, h'mmmm?
But letting a foreign nation tilt the playing field without direct response was not his policy.
Note my tag-line quote of Ronald Reagan below.
True, but we had double digit unemployment when Reagan took office. Overall, he was a firm believer in free markets. The freeer the better. At this time, we are at record high employment figures.
It is infuriating to hear this 1960s liberal speak of Barry Goldwater. Back then he was screaming "Racist!" "Bigot!" "Warmonger!" at the Senator from Arizona. His bio says he entered Yale at the time of the Goldwater v. LBJ election; he even worked for Congressman Ron Dellums during his early years.
We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.
--Ronald Reagan, September 29, 1981
Ridiculous. Medved invites him (Corsi) on the show if he's a gentleman. Instead he cowers and says Corsi must do this or that to get on the Medved show. Beyond pathetic
I am a professional mathematician.
If you can point to anything Corsi presents that in any way resembles a mathematical proof, I would like to see it.
That's an old trick. Covering the needle with the haystack. You put in a long argument, covering many different topics and obscuring the issue. When somebody points at one part of it, you just misdirect to somewhere else in the pile.
Actually, haystack isn't the best analogy, but I'll stay above the scatalogical.
It's clear to me who knows the subject Hawkins and Medved are emotionally reacting to Corsi's material. It's too foreign to their world view. It upsets them
It's pixies in the garden. If you're so deranged that you think there are pixies in the garden, there is no way to argue with you. There's no reason, no rationality.
I prefer the absurdist method and I've done it again and again. I say I'm going to be the Supreme Emperor of the NAU with my visage on the Amero. Well why not? Who is going to run this elaborate conspiracy?
Immigration is a strawman -- nothing to do with the conspiracy except to say that if anyone doesn't buy the conspiracy, then he must be for immigration and therefore be in favor of the conspiracy.
Medved is most famously anti-conspiracy. He devotes a lot of his showtime to ridiculing conspiracies. This is a textbook conspiracy, sponsored by one man in order to sell books.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.