Mike Medved has become unglued, unhinged and irrational over WND’s reporting and my analysis of the PLOT to erase North America’s borders and move the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a European Union-style merger.
“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 … of their self-promoting paranoia regarding an alleged conspiracy to merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico,” he begins. “The defensive tone of their commentary suggests that these two have been appropriately embarrassed: Farah, in particular, dramatically de-escalated his rhetoric.”
Apparently Medved misperceived my best effort at remaining civil and dignified for embarrassment and defensiveness. Let there be no such mistake in the future.
Medved and his fellow Kool-Aid drinking Republican stalwarts suggest that a diabolical PLOT is not really a PLOT unless there is legislation to facilitate all facets of that PLOT. In fact, if you listen to Medved, he seems to think PLOT is a bad word. Presumably, there has never been a successful PLOT by a small band of influential conspirators in the history of the planet. I differ with that na?ve conclusion.
For instance, in his earlier attack on those of us reporting the ominous efforts at destroying U.S. national sovereignty, he states: “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.”
On what authority does he make such a claim? Does he speak from personal experience? Has he attended meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations? Is he a member? Does he understand the history of the Council on Foreign Relations and the well-documented purpose of the organization?
Since I know Medved likes to read as much as he likes to see movies, I would commend him to read a scholarly book written in 2005 by Michael Erdmann called “Building the Kingdom of God on Earth: The Churches’ Contribution to Marshal Public Support for World Order and Peace, 1919-1945.”
Erdmann points out that in the second issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs,” in December 1922, Philip Kerr, the future secretary of the Rhodes Trust and British ambassador to the U.S., laid out the agenda: “There is going to be no steady progress in civilization or self-government among the more backward peoples until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles incident to the attempt of every nation to make itself secure. … The real problem today is that of world government.”
The people promoting this idea of global government – or, I should say, those PLOTTING it – have never believed it was a matter of imminence. They understood it would be a long process to bring the world around to the idea of universalism.
In the 1930s, most of those PLOTTING the breakdown of national sovereignty as a means of achieving the ultimate goal of world government – including John Foster Dulles and the Rockefellers – were, ironically, cheering on National Socialist Adolf Hitler in Germany, Erdmann shows.
In 1942, the Rockefeller Foundation, which to this day helps bankroll the Council on Foreign Relations, sponsored a trip to the U.S. by Arnold J. Toynbee, whose biographer explained the purpose of the mission: “The Rockefeller Foundation, which financed the trip, wanted him to circulate and sample opinion outside official Washington, and undertook, with help from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, to assemble ‘worthwhile groups’ to talk with all across the country. … The burden of his message was that a durable peace would require the United States to take an active part in world affairs, repudiating the isolationism of the 1920s and 1930s and subordinating national sovereignty to some sort of world government.”
While Medved suggests there’s something crazy about the idea of people PLOTTING together, he as a believing Jew should understand this reality is as old as the Tower of Babel.
Medved sees the world breaking down between evil Democrats and righteous Republicans, lying liberals and credible conservatives, loony leftists and reasonable rightists.
Yet, this movement away from constitutional American sovereignty and toward unaccountable global institutions prospers under the leadership of Democrats and Republicans alike, liberals and conservatives alike and leftists and rightists alike. These increasingly meaningless labels actually help to conceal the real strategy of the elite establishment, which handpicks its club members from across the political spectrum.
No, I don’t believe we’re on the verge of an overnight transformation into a North American Union. I never suggested anything of the kind. And Medved knows it.
What opened my eyes to the agenda was a simple search for truth. Why were so many Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, leftists and rightists, ignoring the open invasion of the United States by people crossing the southern border?
Republicans blamed Democrats for wanting to increase their voting rolls.
Democrats blamed Republicans for wanting to increase cheap labor.
But why didn’t anyone simply seek to enforce the law?
Why did both parties risk alienating themselves from the overwhelming number of Americans who could see the quality of life in our country disintegrating?
In short, what did the establishment of both parties have to gain from allowing tens of millions of foreigners to infiltrate our borders and subvert our way of life?
Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Jerome Corsi’s word for it. Don’t take Lou Dobbs’ word for it. Don’t take Phyllis Schlafly’s word for it. Don’t take Tom Tancredo’s word for it.
Do the research yourself. I believe WND has provided a tremendous starting point below. I also urge you to check out the latest issue of Whistleblower magazine, which is solely devoted to this topic of “Premeditated Merger.”