An old adage came to mind while reading Michael Medved’s latest blog entry: “Me thinks he doth protest too much.”
I’m going to rebut what I consider to be Medved’s vicious, unrelenting, personal attacks on me and my news service without resorting to the over-the-top insults he employed in his recent commentaries on plans for a North American Union.
“Today I spent a few minutes listening to another nationally syndicated talk radio show and felt outraged and embarrassed to hear the guest host (an otherwise bright and well-informed conservative) facilitating the twisted, ignorant mounting public hysteria over the looming menace of a ‘North American Union,'” he wrote in his blog last Thursday.
In all the years I’ve known Michael Medved, I’ve never seen him quite this upset about any other topic. Talk about twisted, ignorant hysteria! He seems determined to deny – despite overwhelming evidence, which I will recap briefly – that there is a well-funded, well-heeled political movement promoting a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada.
He continues: “This paranoid and groundless frenzy has been fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state and to replace the good old Yankee dollar with a worthless new currency called ‘The Amero.’ Another delusion usually associated with these fears involves the construction of a ‘Monster Highway’ some 16 lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting the two nations on either side of the border for some nefarious but never-explained purpose.”
Though Medved apparently feels it’s OK to hurl personal invectives and impugn motives as long as you don’t name names in writing, you should know he has been much more specific on his radio show about who is to blame for this dangerous “conspiracy mongering.” He has mentioned WND as the responsible party – and, of course, it is, without a doubt, the source of most of the original reporting on this phenomenon.
Actually, I thought we had done an admirable job sorting out the fact from the fiction – without resorting to hyperbole, as Medved does.
“But aside from the chilling prospect of a ‘Monster Highway’ (why is a new road in Texas supposed to be so scary?) there’s no reason at all to believe in the ludicrous, childish, ill-informed, manipulative, brain dead fantasies about a North American Union,” he writes. “The entire chimera has been conjured up to scare people over nothing – to solicit contributions to fight a non-existent threat, and then when that threat never materializes the exploiters and charlatans who’ve been lying to you about this nonsense can beat their chests and say, ‘Look at that! We stopped the globalists in their evil, diabolical plans to terminate American sovereignty – now send us even more money!'”
Funny, I don’t recall ever asking anyone for a dime for this cause. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who has. But should such an organization emerge, it would not alter the facts of the matter. And the facts clearly show there is an international political movement for integration of the North American continent.
Listen to him sputter and fume, and ask yourself: “Why is this man so angry?”
“I’m sorry to sound cynical and intolerant about this stupidity, but I’m furious, actually – ashamed to be part of a proud medium (conservative talk radio) that increasingly encourages this paralyzing, puerile paranoia. The record couldn’t be more clear on the ‘North American Union’ – there’s no one anywhere near the Bush administration, the Congress of the United States, Cabinet departments or even major think tanks who believes it’s a good idea to merge Canada, Mexico and the U.S. Yes, there was one article in the journal Foreign Affairs that suggested further reducing trade barriers and economic obstacles in the style of the European Union, but that article drew spirited opposition and condemnation from readers of the same magazine and other members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The goal of ‘North American Union’ is far from a policy aim of the Council on Foreign Relations, let alone of the U.S. government.”
Notice the authority with which he speaks: “There’s no one anywhere near the Bush administration, the Congress of the United States, Cabinet departments or even major think tanks who believes it’s a good idea to merge Canada, Mexico and the U.S.”
How does he know? Where are the denunciations of the plan if this is true? How does Medved explain the bipartisan unwillingness to enforce our borders? The Council on Foreign Relations was indeed founded with the very goal of breaking down national sovereignty and instituting, over time, global government as a means of keeping the peace. This is not a matter of conjecture. It’s a matter of historical fact. To deny that the CFR would look approvingly on an interim move toward regional government in the Americas is to bury one’s head in the sand.
“Concerning the feds, the entire horror story about ‘North American Union’ is based upon the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership,’ an utterly innocuous, open, above-board, well-advertised and widely publicized initiative to promote inter-governmental cooperation to fight terrorism, the threat of Avian flu, improve and tighten border security, and promote mutual prosperity,” writes Medved. “The then presidents of the three countries (Bush, Fox and Martin) met in 2005 to pledge to work together on such issues and to initiate open working groups to facilitate cooperation – BUT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OR TREATY OR COVENANT of any kind, secret or otherwise. To find more information about this unthreatening and appropriate project, try going to the website whitehouse.gov, or otherwise checking out government sources (especially the Department of Commerce) under ‘s.p.p.’ to see what’s going on – and what isn’t going on.”
Again, Medved is just plain wrong. The SPP could only be interpreted as an initiative to “tighten border security” by someone who believes George W. Bush is incapable of error, misjudgment or bad policy choices. The stated purpose of the SPP is to move goods and people across borders faster.
And this is where the NAFTA Superhighway – not the “Monster Highway,” as Medved euphemistically dubs it – comes in.
The NAFTA Superhighway should probably more accurately be called “the NAFTA Superhighways,” because plans are in place for several new major north-south highway routes and expansions of old routes linking Mexico with Canada. They are not all privately funded. There is a lobby in Congress solely devoted to extracting more taxpayer dollars for these highways. And the purpose of all of them is to expedite the transportation of goods through the three countries. The biggest beneficiaries of the plan, however, will be the Chinese, who are building major ports in Mexico to unload more cheap consumer products for Americans.
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, you might recall, was supposed to improve the economy of Mexico with more trade. In fact, it has wrecked it beyond recognition – forcing peasant farmers to compete head-to-head with U.S. agribusiness concerns or go to work for them. It should surprise no one that millions of Mexicans have been forced off their farms and into the U.S. as indentured servants since the trade agreement took effect.
Let me stop playing defense for the rest of this column and lay out the facts that Medved has so twisted to conform to his rigid “no conspiracies are possible” philosophy of life.
Last month, my colleague Jerome Corsi, best-selling author, Harvard Ph.D. and WND columnist, took the trouble to interview the man at the very center of the plans for a North American Union. His name is Robert Pastor. This news story is a terrific starting point for understanding the very real threat posed to America’s national sovereignty.
Pastor, a professor at American University in Washington, D.C., doesn’t deny the plans – he claims authorship of them. He was co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations task force that produced the report, “Toward a North American Community,” which, he says, is the blueprint for the SPP, which Medved believes is so innocuous.
In that interview, Pastor mused that the SPP could be developed into a continental union, complete with a new currency, the amero, that would replace the U.S. dollar just as the euro has replaced the national currencies of Europe.
Pastor directs the Center for North American Studies at American University where he teaches a course entitled “North America: A Union, A Community, or Just Three Nations?” As WND previously has reported, Pastor is on the board of the North American Forum on Integration, the NAFI, a nonprofit organization that annually holds a mock trilateral parliament for 100 selected students drawn from 10 universities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
People with big goals understand that you reach your destination only after many small steps. One of the small steps toward a North American Union specifically mentioned by Pastor was the creation of a North American Investment Fund that would tap U.S. taxpayer dollars to help the economy of Mexico.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, formerly a supporter of this international wealth redistribution scheme, changed his mind and dropped his support in the 109th Congress after he learned from WND it was a component of the North American Community agenda.
I suppose Medved would say Cornyn was deceived by WND.
It’s all a matter of small steps, explains Pastor, who differentiates between a North American Community and a North American Union.
“What I am recommending is a series of functional steps that are more than incremental,” Pastor admitted. “Each of the proposals I have laid out represent more than just small steps. But it doesn’t represent a leap toward 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.”
This is evidently a concept unfamiliar to Medved, who apparently assumes since no one has yet introduced into Congress a bill calling for a North American Union that there is no prospect for it ever happening – that no serious people are promoting it, that it is not a real threat to the future of American sovereignty.
After all, this is how the European Union was established. And, by the way, the European Union is not the ultimate goal of those who promoted it. The final objective, as always, is world government.
In my long career as a newsman, I have often been challenged on my opinions. It’s unusual, however, to be battered for what we have dispassionately and soberly reported. What is it about those reports that so angers Medved? Perhaps his argument should be with foreign officials openly promoting the breakdown of borders.
For instance, what does Medved have to say about Enrique Berruga, Mexico’s ambassador to the United Nations? Berruga says publicly a North American Union modeled after the EU is needed – and even provided a deadline. Berruga said the merger must be complete in the next eight years before the U.S. baby boomer retirement wave hits full force.
Medved concludes his screed as follows: “You may not agree with me on everything I say or report in this blog or on my radio show, but I can promise you one thing: I will never lie to you, or pander to your fears, or try to exaggerate dangers when I know better. I will tell you the truth to the best of my ability, and I refuse to insult your intelligence with ludicrous conspiracy tales.”
Michael Medved, you just broke that promise.
If you would like to learn more about what WND has actually reported on the issue of the North American Union, please look at the body of work below and be sure to get the latest issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled “PREMEDITATED MERGER.”