- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Medved insults listeners but defends his president
Posted By Jerome R. Corsi On 05/10/2007 @ 1:00 am In Commentary | Comments Disabled
Michael Medved has issued another Bobby McFerrin “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” response to his troubled listeners who fear – correctly – he is insulting them by his abusive dismissal of any serious discussion of the North American Union and a future regional currency, the amero.
Medved apparently does not understand the European Union was put in place over a 50-year period by intellectual elite who intentionally disguised their ultimate desire to create a regional government through a step-by-step incremental method.
Either Medved does not understand this is what we mean by a “stealth method,” or he is intentionally gaming the issue for effect. Of course, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, is out in the open. There is a government website that publicizes it.
Still, SPP.gov, in a “Myths vs. Facts” section, claims the partnership is just a dialogue, despite the formal organizational chart of the 20 SPP trilateral working groups I had to obtain through a Freedom of Information Act request. The SPP working group organizational site is nowhere to be found on the website.
Let’s just point to two of the many books written on the history of the European Union to see if we can make our point about “the stealth method” so simple and clear that Medved will not to be able to twist his way out of the argument.
Jean Monnet, one of the EU’s chief architects, published his memoirs at the end of his life, in 1978. Throughout the book, Monnet details the many political battles he won to gain whatever foothold he could fighting politicians like Charles DeGaulle, who Monnet knew held onto French nationalism as firmly as Adenauer held onto German nationalism.
In the last two sentences of the work, Monnet finally admitted his intentions all along in pushing for the formation of the European Union were to advance his ultimate goal of global government. Monnet wrote:
The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present: They cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organized world of tomorrow.
In other words, for Monnet, even the EU was only a transitional stage, on the way to one-world government. Monnet could not have said this more clearly.
In one of the most comprehensive studies of the formation of the EU ever written, authors Christopher Booker and Richard North penned “The Great Deception,” an appropriately titled book. Looking back at the history of the European Union, Booker and North concluded Monnet intentionally hid his true intentions as he established the intellectual foundations for a European regional government:
Even though he had long since been honored as “the Father of Europe,” Jean Monnet had always preferred to work behind the scenes, away from the limelight. He knew that, only by operating in the shadows, behind a cloak of obscurity, could he one day realize his dream. What he pulled off … was to amount to a slow-motion coup d’etat: the most spectacular coup d’etat in history.
Even today, as the EU is rapidly becoming a fully functioning regional government, Booker and North maintain the EU system of government still “is veiled in such labyrinthine complexity that, although it has come to rule over hundreds of millions of people, few have any comprehensive knowledge of how it actually works, how it evolved or what an important part it has come to play in their lives.”
Medved is old enough to have lived through the Vietnam era as an adult. One of the lessons many of us learned was to judge politicians, both Democratic and Republican alike – not by what they say, but by what they do.
Yet, Medved still persistently asks us to name politicians who are explicitly calling for the creation of the North American Union and the amero. Then he engages is abusive name-calling, the last refuge of those who have lost the argument on logical grounds.
What we observe in Medved is his continued denial that George W. Bush is a globalist. This is consistent with Medved’s apparent determination to support Bush regardless what position the president takes, and to disparage abusively anyone who disagrees with him.
To be consistent, then, Medved should include the Wall Street Journal among the “paranoid alarmists and sicko fear-peddlers” who dare to talk about the North American Union.
Shortly after Vicente Fox was elected president in Mexico and George W. Bush moved into the White House, Robert L. Bartley, the editor of the Wall Street Journal, lent his voice to the call for the creation of a North American Union.
In a Wall Street Journal editorial published July 21, 2001, Bartley wrote, “Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders not only for goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.”
Evidently, for Medved, the “paranoid alarmists and sicko fear-peddlers” also must include Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus because both have been outspoken critics of the possibility the Security and Prosperity Partnership will incrementally developed into a North American Union and the amero.
Schlafly and Phillips both remember all too well how Europe over a 50-year period evolved from an initial steel and coal trade agreement into the European Union, a full-fledged regional government complete with the euro as a regional currency.
Also included in Medved’s hate list should be Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., whose Concurrent Resolution 40, introduced into the current 110th Congress, calls for the United States to pull out of SPP and for the U.S. to renounce both the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways being built on the model of the Trans-Texas Corridor.
WND has also reported an increasing number of state legislatures are passing resolutions opposing the NAU.
Evidently, Medved would conclude these state legislatures are dominated by “paranoid alarmists and sicko fear-peddlers,” or are so weak that they are controlled by NAU fear-mongers.
Medved argues the creation of the NAU would require a “big fight” in Congress and the public before a new regional government could be put in place.
Yet, Medved once again chooses to ignore the argument I have made repeatedly. Congress continues to be deficient on its obligation to conduct rigorous oversight over the activities of the SPP working groups, the trilateral bureaucratic bodies “integrating” and “harmonizing” our administrative laws and regulations with those of Mexico and Canada.
We have not had a single congressional hearing that examined SPP in detail and sought constitutional justification for its existence.
Right now, we have a major debate raging in the country over securing the borders. Yet, President Bush persistently refuses to listen, even after a major electoral setback as recent as November 2006.
Instead of the fence voted by Congress before that electoral debacle, we are about to get from the Bush administration a “new and improved” version of Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain’s “comprehensive immigration reform” bill those of us who want a fence built see only as a repackaged “guest worker amnesty.”
This sounds like Bush doesn’t care what the electorate or conservatives in his own party think, regardless how vociferously Medved engages in polemics defending the president.
As WND reported this week, President Bush has signed a new Transatlantic Economic Integration agreement with the EU, creating a Cabinet-level Transatlantic Economic Council, all without specific congressional approval.
Just as when the president declared the SPP at a press conference in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, there was also no treaty involved in creating this new transatlantic council. Where was the extensive congressional debate Medved promises must occasion the creation of any such new governmental entity?
We are now going through an elite debate over creating a unitary monetary currency for the NAFTA countries, whether Medved realizes it or not.
Yesterday, we reported on a Council on Foreign Relations proposal to end “monetary nationalism” in favor of a global currency. How much more proof does Medved require to understand that the debate is going on, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not?
I understand Medved wants to portray as “alarmism” the active North American integration taking place in his beloved Bush administration, yet I wonder if he will still maintain this position when the Mexican trucks start rolling across the U.S. border in July under the Department of Transportation’s “demonstration project”?
The FBI told us at their “anti-gang” international conference in El Salvador two weeks ago that the ultra-violent, tattooed, drug-dealing, machete-wielding El Salvadorian gang MS-13 is now in 42 states.
Is it “alarmist” to be concerned the Bush administration’s reluctance to build a fence while SPP is in force has allowed MS-13 to be among the “guest workers” who were here to do the drug-dealing and drive-by-shooting jobs Americans won’t do?
Medved may want to deny any NAFTA Superhighway is being built, but as prominent a Bush administration official as Undersecretary of Transportation for Policy Jeffrey Shane was raked over the coals by Congress for testifying under oath he thought NAFTA Superhighways were just an “urban legend.”
As WND has reported, the Texas Legislature is sufficiently upset about the Trans-Texas Corridor to have put on Gov. Rick Perry’s desk a bill calling for a two-year moratorium of the new toll road Cintra, an investment consortium in Spain, plans to finance now and lease for the next 50 years.
Why should we expect Medved will answer any of these points? To date, he has eschewed calm and rational dialogue on these issues, preferring instead the Saul Alinsky radical technique of name-calling and abusive rhetoric.
Medved is getting an increasing amount of push-back from his radio audience over these issues, and the adverse reaction is likely to continue as long as he chooses to remain in denial that his beloved president is, regrettably, an avowed globalist along the unfortunate model of his father.
If Medved is willing to enter an objective forum that is managed by a fair and reasonable third-party moderator, I continue to challenge him to debate these issues publicly.
Related special offer:
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41525/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.