In a recent conversation, I was challenged to name someone,who isn't a crackpot, who genuinely believes that GWB is pushing a NAU agenda. Here are three. Jerome Corsi- author of the swiftboat book that helped keep horseface Kerry from getting elected. Phyllis Schlafly- "The First lady of Conservatism". Lou Dobbs- CNN anchor. While none of these people are infallible they are also not bomb shelter dwelling conspiracy theorists who think that the devil worshipping Freemasons offered up Jonbenet Ramsey as a human sacrifice. Corsi and Schlafly have written many articles on this subject and provide many official sources. If I weren't such a Luddite I would provide links but anyone really interested can look it up easily enough.
I am not positive that these people are correct, but they do make a reasonable case, that gets more reasonable everytime GWB addresses the illegal immigration subject. I maintain that the three people named are smarter and more informed than I am, and maybe even more than the debater who challenged me to name them. Stepping farther out on the blasphemy limb, they may even be smarter and more informed than Michael Medved, who by the way is the Kool-aid provider to my challenger on this issue. I know that sounds like crazy talk since Medved is infallible, what with him being a former left-wing activist, movie critic, recently turned conservative and all.
Back in the mid eighties when I was a brain washed conspiracy theorist, many true believers were saying that then Vice President GB Sr. was a proponent of "one world government", "open borders", "globalization" and the like. As wrong as they were about soooo many things they may have been right about this. Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
In closing let me say that in my opinion there aren't many people crazier than Fred Phelps. He's the pastor of that weird church in Kansas that disrupts the funerals of dead servicemen. I despise him and what he does, but if I were about to cross a street and he said "Hey, look out for that bus!", I would look up, not because I trust,admire or agree with him, but because I don't want to get mashed by a bus. Sometimes good information is where it is, not where you want it to be.
Yet Again Absolutely Correctly Yours,
The Archduke
P.S.
I attempted to refrain from snide remarks altogether, but a few slipped out and for them I apologize. This whole "being nice" thing requires me to take baby steps. I ordinarily agree with most of what Medved says but on this issue I think he suffers from a type of hysteria, brought on by anything that can remotely be linked with a conspiracy theory.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
North American Union
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Interesting and thought provoking. Im still skeptical about the whole one world government thingy, but it is interesting to see it isn't just the nutty sidebar people who believe this.
The Vic
oh and your kindess brought tears to my eyes.
This is a good, meaty, well written post, and as you read this I’m patting myself on the back for knowing it was coming.
Now, the Lord knows I’m not one to quibble, but having had the good fortune of overhearing the conversation in question, I’m compelled to offer a slightly different version of the truth. If memory serves, the challenger you mention did not ask you to provide a name of just any non-crackpot who believes in the North American Union conspiracy. I’m pretty sure you were asked to name someone, anyone, who has ever held a position somewhere in the conspiracy chain and was willing to share their inside information with the world. But like I said, I’m not one to quibble.
Frankly, I hope there is a conspiracy to create a North American Union and that it is eventually accomplished. Then we could take it and all the other New World Order type grand conspiracies that have proved true, add them together, and end up with a total of 1.
You're not worthy,
King Selfish
P.S.
I scoff at your girlish apology. Own your hatefulness or use the delete button.
---------------
Bonus material...
For the uninitiated, much of the fuel that fires the North American Union conspirators comes from an agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, awkwardly named The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. I can't post a link on the comments page, but if you are interested in a little myth vs. fact comparison copy and paste the web address at bottom...
(Warning, it is a government website. The information provided may be correct. If so, it simply means the feds are counting on you to deceive yourself with your distrust of them. Or it could all be a pack of lies, which is what they expect you would expect, unless they were expecting you to expect something else. Don't worry, it's probably a mixed bag of true and false information designed to keep you guessing. Either way, you're screwed.)
http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp
You might want to stop mouth kissing Medved because it sounds like you might be coming down with his hysteria. You and he are the only ones calling it a conspiracy. It's an agenda, a world view if you will, just like communism. The people pushing it, and there are people pushing it, do so quietly and carefully because when it is spoken aloud it is not very popular with the average American.
With you and Medved frantically distributing your "if you believe any of this then you're a crazy CONSPIRACY THEORIST" brand of kool-aid it makes it hard to have a dialogue about what is or isn't true.
There was a time in the 50's and 60's when Mcarthy and Nixon were derided and laughed at by people like you for seeing "a commie behind every bush." What started out as a theory proved to be a conspiracy. The early law enforcement officials who first suggested a vast network of Italian criminals CONSPIRING to commit crimes, were poo-pooed and snickered at. Conpiracies aren't mythical beasts like unicorns and bigfoot, they exist and they occur EVERY DAY at some level, and the mere mention of the word is no reason to get all red faced and start spewing screechy denials.
To recap, I don't believe this NAU thing is a vast conspiracy. I think the possibility exists that it is a stongly held and quietly advanced point of view, and among it's proponents may be the current president.
No apology this time, POOPIE-FACE!
What? You thought I was done? Not hardly. I just took Sunday off to spend some time with my Heavenly Father.
---------------
Previously, the Archduke said…
“With you and Medved frantically distributing your "if you believe any of this then you're a crazy CONSPIRACY THEORIST" brand of kool-aid it makes it hard to have a dialogue about what is or isn't true.”
and this…
“the mere mention of the word (conspiracy) is no reason to get all red faced and start spewing screechy denials.”
After reading these quotes I went back and read my previous comment to see what you were referring to. Maybe I’m missing it, but even after a second time through I didn’t see anything that seemed frantic, or anything that would approach a red faced screechy denial. I did see some sarcasm, but I have no idea how that got in there.
I’m left to assume--since your post is based on a private conversation that you chose to take public—that these quotes represent your warped interpretation of an exchange that transpired outside the province of this blog.
Let’s move on, shall we?
What I really want to focus on is your assertion that conspiracies of one kind or another are formed or carried out everyday. You may be surprised to know that I absolutely agree with you on this point. At any given time there are at least two people planning to do something they shouldn’t. But with all due respect (not that any is due), neither your original post nor my response to it were concerned with just any random, low level conspiracy. The idea that the President of the United States is plotting to “abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union”(a phrase we will see again) is a big deal, a HUGE deal, on the magnitude of a New World Order or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or some other nonsense. By comparison the Italian mafia and Cold War era Soviet spies in the U.S. government are veritable lightweights. Please.
But King Selfish, if Bush doesn’t have some secret plan to merge the U.S. with Canada and Mexico, why is he so actively pursuing what appears to be an anti-American immigration policy? My short answer is, beats me. But if I were a betting man I would place my money on something other than an evil desire to do away with America. For all I know, as wrong-headed as it is, he may actually believe what he says. Virtually every word he has spoken on the subject can be found at whitehouse.gov, knock yourself out. Well then, what’s the deal with the NAFTA Super Highway? Uh, I don’t know, could it be that some folks who do things thought it would help with the burden of distributing goods?
Let’s move on again, shall we?
Archduke, you obviously think Michael Medved, in addition to providing me kool-aid and mouth kisses, does my thinking for me on this subject. That’s fine, even though I have never mentioned him on this blog, and to my knowledge the only thing you, Medved, and I/me have in common is a single column of his in which he explains why he thinks the panic over an impending NAU is foolishness. Oh well, I guess there are worse people who could put words in my mouth. Like your lover Jerome Corsi, for instance.
You stated in your comment that what’s driving the NAU idea is an agenda, a world view if you will, just like communism. What I say is that when it comes to this subject, Corsi often uses the word agenda when he really means conspiracy. Clever, that man. Here are a few examples from one of his articles.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Jerome Corsi,
“President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.”
“Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.”
“President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.”
“Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.”
There you go ladies and gentlemen. If you didn’t notice any language that could be mistaken for conspiracy talk you might want to read it again. But rest assured, no matter how it looks, Mr. Corsi is definitely not a conspiracy theorist.
I must go now. I am late to a secret meeting where I and other powerful men will plot evil schemes of world domination.
Note to self- Never try to debate someone who can read minds. Since I don't possess any supernatural powers I didn't know that when Corsi said agenda he REALLY meant conspiracy.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." Neither I nor any of the three people I mentioned in my original post ever said that GWB had an "evil desire to do away with America." You, in your anti-conspiracy theorist hysteria, made that up. Oh wait, I forgot about that mind reading thing, my bad. Tell me how does the truth of what we REALLY mean come to you? Is it a deep FEEEELING that you get? If so you might want to consider moving to Hollywood where those FEEEELINGS are taken as facts.
Faced with the King's unfair advantage (ESP) I am ready to drop this. But remember, gentle reader, I never said, nor do I believe, that this NAU allegation is a conspiracy. I simply stated that with Bush making one stupid border security/illegal immigration decision after another, the Corsi/Schlafly argument is starting to make more sense.
P.S.
King, I inadvertantly had a racy thought about one of the Fox News anchorwomen, please don't post it on here because you are only supposed to use your gift for good, not evil.
Do you have a guilty conscience? Go back and look, I never said you were a NAU conspiracy theorist. Does it always have to be about you?
Your attempt to marginalize me with words such as hysterical, frantic, screechy, kool-aid drinker, and mind-reader is cute, but ineffective. Who was it that you said was making “it hard to have a dialogue about what is or isn’t true?” But please, have your mean spirited fun. Hateful non-sequiturs aside, I will continue to keep the name calling to a minimum and allow my reasoned argument to elevate the discourse.
You wrote…
Neither I nor any of the three people I mentioned in my original post ever said that GWB had an "evil desire to do away with America."
Ok, but let’s take one more look at a single sentence written by your friend Jerome Corsi and see if he believes GWB has an evil desire to do away with America.
Speaking of President Bush, Mr. Corsi writes:
“His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.”
Corsi writes about Bush’s “secret agenda” to dissolve the U.S. into a NAU. By definition, if America was dissolved, it would be done away with. Furthermore, Corsi makes it plain that he thinks this would be a very bad thing. In other words, it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to say that Mr. Corsi believes GWB has an evil desire to do away with America.
Here is a list of names for, and adjectives describing, according to Medved, anyone who disagrees with him on this subject. Names- lunatics, losers, crooks, cranks, demagogues, opportunists, bastards, creeps, jugheads, drunks, reprobates. Adjectives- twisted, ignorant, ludicrous, childish, ill-informed,manipulative, and brain dead. All of these in one article, mind you. An article in which he admits to being furious. To me that sounds red faced and screechy, more precisely it sounds like an emotional overreaction.
In all fairness I have never witnessed you being screechy and you are only red faced when the cooler is heavy and the day hot. This subject does, however, elicit from you, an elevated animation level. i.e. backhanded dismissals, eyerolling, and increased volume.
Aside from the method of delivery, you and Medved preach from the same overly agressive text on this issue so I assumed one of you got it from the other. Perhaps he formed his opinions based on yours.
I made no attempt to marginalize you, your overreaction to an offhand comment did that quite nicely without any help from me. Because I know you need it, I'll give you the last word.
Post a Comment