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 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 361-375 next last
To: Cinnamon Girl; AmishDude
You're funny, Amish Dude.

Looks aren't everything.

:-)

301 posted on 01/10/2007 1:15:03 PM PST by jmc813 (Go Jets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Furthermore, I told you just yesterday that I am weary of pointing out to you that we do not have a FTA with China.

We're not supposed to need one because they were inducted...largely by our doing... into the World Trade Organization. The multilateral free trade umbrella organization. So much for that free trade panacea.

Pointing to it as an example of a country that does not play by the rules simply generates a "well, duh" response.

Not by you. Nor by your fellow-travellers. Instead you shrilly screech against any enforcements of those "rules." Unilaterally defending the indefensible...espousing "comparative advantage" rationalizations.

302 posted on 01/10/2007 1:15:49 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 272 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

This thread needs a tariff on strawmen.


303 posted on 01/10/2007 1:18:14 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Now you're arguing that they don't take into account all the "nuances?"

No. I am pointing out that no matter the headline, or the page length, a deal may be flawed. And what ultimately matters is the execution on the ground. And any Reservations thereto [either in the paperwork, or in the actual lack of good will] may tip the balance.

In principal, the shorter the paper the better. As Ron Paul has said, the longer the agreement, the less this sounds like free trade.

304 posted on 01/10/2007 1:32:36 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 299 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
“. . . and if [trade agreements were] 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?”
Paul Ross, yesterday (on this thread).

“These are issues of imperfection in the trade, i.e., ‘non-freedom’ in the trade that need to be addressed.”
Paul Ross, today (on this thread).

I really need to introduce you to the doctrine of "estoppel."
305 posted on 01/10/2007 1:35:13 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; 1rudeboy

This thread has turned into an interesting debate between you guys. You're each making good points.


306 posted on 01/10/2007 1:38:37 PM PST by jmc813 (Go Jets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
You understand that buying stuff at WalMart is unrelated to the Federal Government spending more money than it takes in? No, I guess you don't.

I thought we were talking US trade deficits NOT Federal budget deficits.
Trade deficits are related to buying Chinese craps at Wal Mart
307 posted on 01/10/2007 1:55:49 PM PST by dennisw (Don't let your past become your future -- Georges Gurdjieff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
You're funny, Amish Dude.

Thanks. That's why they made me SUPREME Emperor AmishDude I.

308 posted on 01/10/2007 2:01:21 PM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You don't have a clue what American sovereignty means. Nor do you care one bit about it. For you it's me me me me what can I buy cheaper no matter where it comes from. You could care less if the USD collapses due to outsized trade deficits


309 posted on 01/10/2007 2:31:10 PM PST by dennisw (Don't let your past become your future -- Georges Gurdjieff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I thought we were talking US trade deficits NOT Federal budget deficits.

I was talking about trade deficits, you seem to bounce between the two.

Trade deficits are related to buying Chinese craps at Wal Mart

Yes they are. Now how does my purchase of something from another country (for cash even) put America into hock to another country?

310 posted on 01/10/2007 2:42:31 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
You don't have a clue what American sovereignty means.

Does it mean the government should force him to only buy American goods?

You could care less if the USD collapses due to outsized trade deficits

That would cause Americans to buy fewer foreign goods. Which is what you want. Now you think that's a bad thing? You're not very consistent.

311 posted on 01/10/2007 2:45:24 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Poor Paul. Logic and consistency were never his strong points.


312 posted on 01/10/2007 2:46:11 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Dane
This is not in defense of Laura Ingraham as I have never heard her. I just wished to point out that you, of all people, are calling someone shrill. Pot. Kettle.
313 posted on 01/10/2007 3:46:51 PM PST by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
which, in a Corsican fashion ("Corsi," get it? I slay myself sometimes)

lol!

314 posted on 01/10/2007 4:16:25 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Alia

Indeed!


315 posted on 01/10/2007 7:18:09 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

That's gonna leave a mark! LOL


316 posted on 01/10/2007 7:24:32 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

If I knew, I would have written it out. *shrugs*


317 posted on 01/10/2007 7:25:57 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

I used to think that Medved was a smart fellow.

We already have 2/3 of a North American Union, with Mexico sending millions of its citizens across the border to sponge off our taxpayers, and to suck up services like free education and free medical care.

Corsi and Farrah may be right about a plot.

Now all the North American Union loonies have to do is to get Canada on board.


318 posted on 01/10/2007 7:26:06 PM PST by Palladin ("Coke--it's the real thing!"...Obama Osama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael

My lips are sealed, but that's very interesting; thanks for telling me!


319 posted on 01/10/2007 7:28:07 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Palladin
We already have 2/3 of a North American Union, with Mexico sending millions of its citizens across the border to sponge off our taxpayers, and to suck up services like free education and free medical care.

Clinton and Bush are both open borders types. Clinton's push for NAFTA was relentless and NAFTA passed Congress with a lot more Republican votes than Donk votes. With NAFTA and open borders policies and the SSP intergovernmental planning going on the North American Union is being made inevitable
320 posted on 01/10/2007 11:30:38 PM PST by dennisw (Don't let your past become your future -- Georges Gurdjieff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 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