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.

[Paul Ross]

...on a sesame bun...

And you have apparently already forgotten the lesson of Jack Abramoff? No one is above the law, unless you're with the Clintons team apparently.

We need to have an administration that is not beholden to any such narrow economic entity as a solitary securities firm.

Why is the Govt-Private Merry-Go-Round so blatant with regard to Goldman Sachs? From the most recent and conspicuous incestuous appointment...naming as Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and then their RE-HIRING Robert M. Zoellick for huge dollars? Nothing suspicious at all there. Move along. Move along. Nothing to see....

Where the heck are the other majors which are more diversified in their views, the Bear-Stearns, and Smith-Barney and Lehman Brothers policy heads?

Doesn't it seem just a teensy-bit suspicious that there are so many Cabinet and subcabinet heads coming out of Goldman-Sachs, which is apparently the Securities trading entity most associated with outsourcing to China?

If W's administration had been even only half as dedicated to restoring American Defense procurement as he was to abetting industrial hemmhorraging to China...we would be in a vastly stronger position relative to the Communists than we are today, as they cement their Anti-U.S. axis...

I can't help but wonder what Theodore Roosevelt would have thought of this administration's unusual attachment to GS, and the policies it favors...this might be a clue:

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life.

[AmishDude]

Wow, with a pickle on the side.

[Paul Ross]

Wow, with a pickle on the side.

So you have any substantive policy point?

BTW: Who are you, as an Iowan, leaning towards in the straw poll in the upcoming Iowa Republican caucuses?

[AmishDude]

What policy point? An article from nobody? An image-laden rant making no actual points but hinting *wink,wink* at a conspiracy? ("Don't you think it's interesting...")

I don't know whom I support in the caucuses, but let me immediately figure out whom I oppose:

Whom do you support?

[Paul Ross]

What policy point? An article from nobody? An image-laden rant making no actual points but hinting *wink,wink* at a conspiracy? ("Don't you think it's interesting...")

You missed the very-clearly-stated policy point. And it isn't a conspiracy, if its in the open, is it? What I am pointing to, and directly condemning is undue influence. By a party that directly prospers from that influence. And advocates appeasement.

I don't know whom I support in the caucuses

Guess you can't...or won't... think for yourself, then. Wait until it's all over, and then decide, eh? And you apparently feel a need to knee-jerk oppose those who true conservatives support.

Lame. Your position thus makes you indistinguishable from the Des Moines Register...I suppose you supported John Kerry as well.

[AmishDude]

All over? ALL OVER? Somebody should buy you a precise timekeeping device. Like a calendar.

Actually, I have some preferences, but I will share them only with rational, intellectual people. I'm willing to wait to see how events test each candidate. The campaign itself is a sufficient gauntlet.

I smell an ad hominem, because you'll find something wrong with anyone I mention, so I'll say that I will only vote for Jesus Christ and I will ask you again: Whom do you support?

Oh, and you STILL have not answered my question about a state formed in secret and away from the public.

[Paul Ross]

I smell an ad hominem, because you'll find something wrong with anyone I mention, so I'll say that I will only vote for Jesus Christ and I will ask you again: Whom do you support?

Ditto!

LOL! Take them apples!

[Pelham]

I'm sorry, I just can't prove there aren't pixies in the garden.

Yes, that's a clever but irrelevant example of a logical fallacy.

I'm interested in seeing what develops from the KC SmartPort, which appears to have more substance than invisible pixies:

http://www.kcsmartport.com/

http://www.kcsmartport.com/pdf/SmtPrtOneRoute.pdf

[AmishDude]

Yes, what a detriment it would be for goods to go through a central clearing-house instead of the haphazard way it happens now. That must make it more difficult to screen them and to regulate the transport of goods and migrants.

You guys kill me.

But it's irrelevant. We're talking about the NAU. The North American Superstate. And you can't seem to keep on subject.

I wonder why...

[Junior_G]

Medved is a very articulate guy, and a pleasure to listen to on certain issues; but he is also a Republican party hack to the core. He is as much of a spokesmouth for the White House as any talk radio host has ever been.

[hedgetrimmer]

Does Mr. Medved know about the deep integration in the name of Simon Bolivar in the southern part of our hemisphere?

From where did spring the idea of the South American Union, if not from the corrupt intellect of the globalists who developed the idea of the North American Union?

If it is such make-believe, why is there a plan for a union of Arab states, starting with a monetary union? And for African states? The talk is all over the internet about their efforts to regionalize, form customs unions and monetary unions (these are code words for making a new 'country' out of many old ones, with corporatist fascist governments in control)

[Pelham]

Apparently you can't post without attempting to make yourself feel superior. That must be very tiring, and you have my sympathy.

I'm just following the debate on the subject of the NAU. You seem to have a need to make it an us vs them issue, and I'm not interested. You'll have to look elsewhere to find a "You guys" with which to practice your witticisms, as excellent as they are.

[AmishDude]

Look, I always feel superior when faced with fools who fall for an obvious con job. Like the NAU. Or Islam.

This whole NAU garbage is tautologically stupid.

[Pelham]

You should feel superior, you deserve to. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be as intelligent as you, and you provide a model for us to emulate and admire. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that I look forward to your reasoned and edifying posts.

[AmishDude]

I do have to admit that I do the sarcastic, backhanded compliment much better than you do.