Michael Medved - Flushing Out Fear Mongers from Their Fever Swamps (FR Mentioned)

Town Hall ^ | 1-4-2006 | Michael Medved

[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.

[jmc813]

BTW, I think Medved is "wrong, wrong, wrong" not to have Mr. Corsi on his program. I don't know who is right, but he should have the decency to have him on his show if he is going to publically attack him/his ideas. He has every leftist loon out there on his show.

Being that you are the keeper of the Medved ping list and willing to post that, you have gained a lot of respect in my book for your intellectual consistency. I wish certain others on this thread were not suffering from cognitive dissonance.

[Paul Ross]

Nope, not personal except I was there to witness it. It didn't go out live over the air, with usual delay for obscenity and defamation filtering, and it wasn't about "having time for every Tom" etc. There are gaps between the commercials where he took breaks and shook hands. And I saw this while still standing in the small crowd outside the Patriot booth (the radio-station shack) just a few minutes after I had greeted him myself.

He didn't want to debate CAFTA at all. There was some Farmers association guy there [and remember this is the State Fair...which was founded to celebrate farming] and he identified himself as such and wanting to debate Medved on CAFTA...and Medved conspicuously bypassed him...

Another area that Medved conspicuously ducks...evidence that the trade deficit is in fact having horrific consequences even in the phoney's claims to net national wealth (often practicing one of the 25 rules of disinformation):

[Paul Ross]

Translation, times have changed...

Not in any realistic way as to require or recommend a change from the traditional Republican policy of America First, and Independence.

[Paul Ross]

Wrong. I can enjoy Medved's shows except when the discussion is about immigration or economics. (Or entertainment stuff, of course.)

LOL!

Ditto! I often find his star-rating of the various movies a bit too indulgent of themes I find questionable.

[AmishDude]

Can you wear a hat with bells on?
Sounds kinda gay.

Ah, then I have my answer. Let me know if it fits. I strongly suspect that it does:

[AmishDude]

Yep, I thought so, he wouldn't give his microphone and the show he'd already planned to some know-nothing wacko with "issues".

Let's see how much you know about economics. Explain the Laffer Curve.

[AmishDude]

That gem just made the "Comments From Fans" section of my profile page.

Well, I would question your intelligence, but it's impossible to question that which does not exist.

[AmishDude]

That gem just made the "Comments From Fans" section of my profile page.

Well, I would question your intelligence, but it's impossible to question that which does not exist.

[AmishDude]

Sorry for the internet hiccup.

[AmishDude]

Clearly the conspiracy called me to double post.

[Paul Ross]

This just in to WoC news service:

Loony leftist invited to testify by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unhinged professor to describe a North American Community Approach to Security

Bump! LOL!

Why is this whole scam being given a pass, when the apologists KNOW that it's personnel are conspicuously rotten apples?

This particular Loony Leftist was apparently hired by Administration for work on the implentation strategies thereto, the "architecture" if you will, of the SPP..,when there must be a zillion others without his particular axe to grind... Why is that given a pass?

[Interesting Times]

Hits on WND, of course.

The accusation that Corsi's writing is all a nefarious plot to attract hits to his publisher's web site is a rather weak one, since it also applies to everybody else who publishes anything, anywhere.

[AmishDude]

Farah just published an article on WND just today on this topic.

Farah owns the site.

[Interesting Times]

Yes, all web sites and newspapers have owners. Your point would be?

[AmishDude]

Well, he is certainly trying to sell his product, just like many high-end and thought-provoking publications.

[miliantnutcase]

You took the words out of my mouth! Thank you. It gets hard to listen to him when he doesn't systematically lay out facts to debunk these guys. On this issue they have as much credibility as he does.

[Paul Ross]

he wouldn't give his microphone and the show he'd already planned to some know-nothing wack with issues.

Actually he just went back to taking calls out of the blue. He had nothing "planned" except not to let an Association Expert confront him on his blithe suppositions palmed off as Gospel Writ. It rather appeared to me that he was afraid to get his hands dirty...or be unfrocked as having a gaping ignorance in at least one "Agenda" subject.

Let's see how much you know about economics. Explain the Laffer Curve.

LOL! Pretty odd question to ask an old-time Reaganite.

The chart is self-evident. And you will never see me complaining about tax cuts. I.e., there is tax receipts growth manifest even now (which makes W's hints that he will throw in the towel--caving to the RATs-- on his cuts kind of alarming)

I favor a complete switch-over in tax structure, from production-punishing income/gains taxes to consumption based taxes. One based on a foundational general revenue tariffs (with occasional reciprocity for other high wage countries) and a national sales tax at retail. These would take a smaller chunk of the GDP, and shift corporate decision-making away from their policies which undercut America, and lead to a broad revitalization and restoration. And far more valuable than the gross economic impacts, would be the effects on restoring American independence, freeing us from unhealthy and malign foreign dependence.

I probably favor real Supply-Side economics far more than you do...and if you could only absorb it, you likely would embrace it fully. You are aware at the core of Supply-Side theory is a focus on Supply, not Demand, as the Monetarists who have since fudged over the very vital distinctions. What is your willingness to learn?

"America, It's Worth Protecting"
--Duncan Hunter, for President '08

[Interesting Times]

Oh, no! They captured the Bat Boy?

[rightwingcrazy]

When the facts are on Medved's side, he argues facts. When he switches to ad hominum attacks it's a sure sign he has nothing.

That bad habit has made his radio show increasingly unbearable for me to listen to. It doesn't matter whether I support his point or not; his name-calling makes me cringe, particularly when he's losing the argument.

[EveningStar]

Unlike Horowitz he has never atoned and exposed the idiocy of liberalism of those war/civil right days; instead he simply brought his feeeeeeeeeeeelings and contumely to our side, unleashing the latter upon paleo-conservatives. IMO.

You must be kidding. He wrote a book about it.