Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Medved - Flushing Out Fear Mongers from Their Fever Swamps (FR Mentioned)
Town Hall ^ | 1-4-2006 | Michael Medved

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: botbait; conspiracy; corsi; crymeariver; cuespookymusic; farah; icecreammandrake; kookmagnetthread; medved; michaelmedved; minuteman; minutemanproject; northamericanunion; transtinfoilcorridor; wnd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 361-375 next last
To: dennisw

Corsi is a con-man who would love the platform of Medved's show and Medved is not going to give him free airtime.

I would think if St. Jerome could demonstrate that he can behave himself, then Medved would be happy to give him a segment or an hour.

Say what you want about Medved, he doesn't shy from debate.


121 posted on 01/09/2007 1:55:39 PM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Peach

AMEN!


122 posted on 01/09/2007 1:56:34 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Who is going to run this elaborate conspiracy?

There's another book in that one.

123 posted on 01/09/2007 1:56:37 PM PST by SJackson (The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
...Corsi must do this or that to get on the Medved show.

Ooooh. Dial a phone. Ouch, that's grueling!

Beyond pathetic

Beyond hyperbolic.

124 posted on 01/09/2007 2:00:10 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
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.

Yes. Trust the United States Citizens. Our People. But for all OTHERS? Verify.

"Trust but verify."-Ronald Reagan

Subtly, those who don't want to verify, or when malefactors are caught red-handed...protect said U.S. citizens against said malefactors...are guilty of NOT "trusting the people" who indeed deserve to be protected. Indeed, how many times have we had the People slammed by these elitists as being "afraid of competition" or "retreating" or some such drivel?

The phoney free traders are in fact agents of the very "rigid governmental controls" that Reagan warned agains...such as China's.

They are enablers thereto and accomplices.

125 posted on 01/09/2007 2:00:20 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Thanks for the ping!

When sanity is posted, why on earth do segments of FR go INsane? :-)

126 posted on 01/09/2007 2:00:59 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Say what you want about Medved, he doesn't shy from debate.

Actually he does sometimes. Saw it right here in Minnesota at the State Fair.

127 posted on 01/09/2007 2:01:34 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

Agreeing with the President is more laudable than the opposite 90% of the time.


128 posted on 01/09/2007 2:05:15 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

That's the funny thing about people such as you that complain about "fairness." When someone points out to you that a trade agreement such as CAFTA immediately removes the tariff or other trade restrictions on 80% of all U.S. goods going to the region, with the remainder being phased-out over 10 or 15 years (I don't remember which), you keep complaining. The fact of the matter is you oppose trade agreements such as CAFTA for entirely different reasons other than "fairness," because "I will charge you 0% if you charge me 0%" is as "fair" as one can get. I just don't see why you can't just admit it.


129 posted on 01/09/2007 2:07:38 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Spot on!


130 posted on 01/09/2007 2:09:53 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Alia

Some days, the old kookmeter starts bouncing off the limiter around here.


131 posted on 01/09/2007 2:10:01 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

By "goods" I meant industrial and consumer, not including agricultural.


132 posted on 01/09/2007 2:11:35 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Peach

LOL! There you have it.


133 posted on 01/09/2007 2:13:27 PM PST by onyx (DONATE NOW! -- It takes DONATIONS to keep FR running!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
CAFTA was pretty much discredited or it wouldn't have needed $45 billion pork-barrel dollars of White House bribery to induce Congressional acquiesence in the wee hours past the hours permitted time allowed by Congressional rules. And let us NEVER forget that it is enforced by extra-constitutional foreign mechanisms superceding our courts, and if it was just "I will charge you 0% if you charge me 0%" is as "fair" as one can get. then why did they need 3,000 pages for the damn thing? As Congressmen Ron Paul famously pointed out.

I just don't see why you can't just admit it.

There is more to free trade than tariffs. There is the wage structure which has been created and maintained primarily by the government's interference. China is not the sole culprit in this. And pretending it doesn't happen is "the funny thing about people such as you that complain about" your supposed lack of "freedom".

134 posted on 01/09/2007 2:20:00 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

I zipped through the Hawkins-Corsi debate comments too. That was a good comment and there were a few others. US sovereignty is being whittled away in plain sight by a quiet cabal that goes about it's business (making a North American Union) while avoiding publicity and oversight. EU was formed the same way.

I could almost tolerate being unified with Canada into one nation. But Mexico? This is sick sick sick


135 posted on 01/09/2007 2:22:45 PM PST by dennisw (Don't let your past become your future -- Georges Gurdjieff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; nopardons

Since you got my post pulled because you were so offended by the work "dumba##" (and not because it exposed you as a dumba##), I'll post it again:

You are demonstrably wrong. My point was that the average Mexican spends more on US imports than the average American spends on Mexican imports. This is indisputable.

Man, getting someones post pulled because you are embarassed. How lame is that?


136 posted on 01/09/2007 2:23:57 PM PST by presidio9 (Karl Rove has the weather machine set on "defrost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

:-)


137 posted on 01/09/2007 2:24:08 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

It most assuredly does and it's way past time for the crazed conspiracy theorists here to be consigned to the smokey backroom, for good and all.


138 posted on 01/09/2007 2:26:24 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Corsi is a con-man who would love the platform of Medved's show and Medved is not going to give him free airtime.

Actually an offer of free airtime was made. Corsi must phone up the Medved show like a regular Joe caller. Medved is too high faluting to invite Jerome Corsi for a normal guest appearance

139 posted on 01/09/2007 2:27:24 PM PST by dennisw (Don't let your past become your future -- Georges Gurdjieff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
You are demonstrably wrong. My point was that the average Mexican spends more on US imports than the average American spends on Mexican imports. This is indisputable.

Inneresting since last time I looked we ran a 30 billion dollar annual trade deficit with that 3rd world narco-anarachy. Before NAFTA we ran a surplus with them
140 posted on 01/09/2007 2:30:27 PM PST by dennisw (Don't let your past become your future -- Georges Gurdjieff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 361-375 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson