Corsi to Medved: There are so plans to create a North American Union
posted at 6:02 pm on January 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Here it is, true believers. You sat patiently when I mocked you for buying this nonsense; you bit your lips while I lobbed rhetorical grenades from the likes of Michael Medved in your direction. You held yourselves with dignity through it all, apart from occasional outbursts about Canadian freemasons and the Mexican illuminati.
You’ve earned this. I hope you enjoy it.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If you think an “Amero” is a [*blank*]
then you might be a redneck.
Max Power on January 2, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Citing Medved for the case against NAU wasn’t a grenade lobbed outward; it was charity toward the pro-conspiracy side.
Alex K on January 2, 2007 at 6:13 PM
The future of the U.S.
Courtesy of Immigration Watchdog.
Gregor on January 2, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Thank you, AP. I feel somewhat vindicated.
PRCalDude on January 2, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Wow. Powerful and well documented. Like I said before, I have yet to see facts that disprove these “conspiracies” so it’s difficult to deny the forward-march of the NAU. It seems if the issue would be easily defeated with facts and documentation to disprove Corsi’s claims, some political pundit somewhere would jump all over the chance at getting their name in the spotlight.
….still waiting….
NTWR on January 2, 2007 at 6:35 PM
I still think there are some serious constitutional obstacles to any NAU. That being said, Corsi did a much more eloquent job of arguing his position than Medved did, and I have a feeling that Corsi would absolutely crush Medved in a live debate.
thirteen28 on January 2, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Trust me here, I wish I had been wrong.
shooter on January 2, 2007 at 6:50 PM
January 2nd, 2007 and most of the news SUCKS (can I say that?)
Is this just the beginning, all this bad news already in 2007? Or can we only go up from here?
Optimism is my ’07 battle cry!!! Optimism (and action).
shooter on January 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Too.Much.Fun.
Jaibones on January 2, 2007 at 7:04 PM
T R E A S O N ! ! !
CitizenJim on January 2, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Seriously now, a million? Seems to me they would need to intentionally design the road to wipe out as many residential dwellings as possible and I still don’t think they could displace 5% of all Texans. Such hyperbole gives the Medveds ammunition to dismiss all of these concerns. Texas also passed strict anti-Kelo legislation after that decision came down and they would have a heck of a battle on their hands if they even tried something like this. Some of those “million” wouldn’t want to go and I can’t see Texas trying to forcibly confiscate their land.
Perchant on January 2, 2007 at 7:48 PM
I, for one, welcome our new NAU overlords
liberrocky on January 2, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Yeesh. Quebec doesn’t want to be part of Canada. Do you think they’d want to be part of Canamerico?
flipflop on January 2, 2007 at 7:51 PM
With playing the martyr a close second.
spmat on January 2, 2007 at 7:58 PM
mmmmmmm….canadian bacon burritos
quax1 on January 2, 2007 at 8:01 PM
How many more years of open borders will it require for a North American Union to create itself, without anyone trying? Not too many.
Kevin M on January 2, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Nothing like laying out the evidence to substantiate your point of view.
Perhaps we can utilize the Demos to impeach Bush.
Chenny was director of the CFR so he would have to be petitioned out.
Who’s up for POTUS after Pelosi is impeached?
Speakup on January 2, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Perchant.
I suspect that in order to entice the foreign investment needed to build such a giant hiway plots of land will be taken and then given along with the land necessary to just put the hiway itself on.
Speakup on January 2, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Killer rebuttal. I think Michael Medved should think carefully before offering up another diatribe on the subject, he’s heavily outgunned.
Penchant,
The anti-Kelo legislation in Texas wouldn’t apply. What they passed was good, and it prevents developers from getting transfers of owned land simply by offering increased tax revenues, but it has no affect on eminent domain land transfers for governmental use. And since it would be the federal government’s plans that call for acquiring all that land, no state restrictions on eminent domain could interfere.
It’s not so hard to move a massive number of people over 50 years. And the land required will be for much more than just roads, as listed above, so it becomes easier to understand how it could affect so many people.
Freelancer on January 2, 2007 at 8:37 PM
I already knew this…………..because there is no other logical reason for Bush to allow the chaos of unchecked borders to continue……….the question is when will the sleeping giant of Americans wake up!!
Mellen on January 2, 2007 at 8:39 PM
A distinction without a difference, especially for a project that would involve foreign investors and private ownership, etc. The public outcry that persuaded the politicians to enact anti-Kelo legislation wouldn’t be placated by a loophole.
Perchant on January 2, 2007 at 9:02 PM
I can’t for the life of me see how this Texican Highway can possibly be to the benefit of anyone but contractors and Mexican long-haul drivers, freight-handlers, and dock workers(plus of course the Spanish consorzium). What the hell is the matter with using the ports on our own coasts? Wouldn’t that at least insure that some of the drivers were actual (legal) Americans? Wouldn’t that also offer at least some small benefit security-wise?
President Bush has given away the farm regarding anything Mexican/Hispanic. And for what? So used-car-salesmanlike Vincente Fox will send him a freaking Christmas card?
hillbillyjim on January 2, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Personally, i want to see the American Union’s money be called “The Gringo”
Seriously though, we may add Central & Western Canada to the US if Quebec ever does split off… But I don’t see the US absorbing Mexico. The Yucatan region is nothing but trouble.
Jones Zemkophill on January 2, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Sorry, still not buying it. No one has answered the simple question: why? What is the motivation of this bi-partisan, multi-administration cabal? They’re going to end the sovereignty of three countries, with collective populations of over 440 million, strip us of our currency, history and language?
Not one person in Washington with a shred of credability has come forward over the span of three administrations to expose this. Not to mention 4 Mexican administrations and 5 Canadian. This would without a doubt be the most extensive conspiracy and cover up in American, Canadian, and Mexican history.
I hate to say it because I admire Corsi (I’m staring at my copy of Unfit for Command as I write this) but he’s absolutely, 100% and without a doubt, full of it.
Verbal Abuse on January 2, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Might the FHWA be talking about the next fifty years of upgrades in general, not specifically concerning new highways originating at the Mexican border? 4000 miles seems not to be the most direct path from el Rio Grande to Oklahoma. I wonder if the superhighway from Mexico to Canada is being read into what are only necessary construction projects over the next TWO generations? What was the highway system like in your state fifty years ago?
Perhaps the FHWA is speaking of constructing/revamping highways over the next fifty years to keep up with economic growth they believe will visit Texas as a result of NAFTA-enabled trade? That may not be good for the rest of us, but it is hardly conspiratorial to take a realistic look at regional economic trends. Maybe the one million are not all displaced? Crossing a 100-acre ranch does not require the eviction of the land owner. Maybe many of the affected are going to be moving from economically blighted areas to better digs as a result of these highway projects; again, over the next two generations, not tomorrow? I dunno.
shuzilla on January 2, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Verbal – Why’d they do it in Europe? You can’t deny it has been done; even though enough countries have not ratified the EU Constitution, all the trappings are in place and superceding local rule in a number of areas.
After reading that, all you can say is that because not enough people that you’ve heard of have complained in the past, the current complainers are full of it? That argument doesn’t take into account the incremental nature of the changes that are being made.
Laura on January 2, 2007 at 10:13 PM
This would without a doubt be the most extensive conspiracy and cover up in American, Canadian, and Mexican history.
Verbal Abuse on January 2, 2007 at 9:33 PM
That is exactly the same silly strawman Allahpundit keeps bringing up. There is no conspiracy or master plan necessary for demographic and policy shifts that make it happen.
By that logic it is impossible that Rome was burned and came to have non-Roman Roman emperors without that being centrally planned in a conspiracy ahead of time by the legitimate emperors.
Resolute on January 2, 2007 at 10:20 PM
At least once a year everyone should re-watch Chinatown.
Stephen M on January 2, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Medved really has no excuse.
Stephen M on January 2, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Wrong. Legally there is no comparison. The government has been claiming private property for the purpose of building highways since highways were first thought of. Claiming land for highways is not included in the debate over Kelo. The debate is over the ability to claim private land to be used by another private party, while using the excuse that it would benefit the over-all public.
You might THINK it’s SORTA the same thing, but legally there is no comparison. The government has every legal right under the constitution to claim your property and turn it into a freeway. They DON’T have the right to claim your property and turn it into a Walmart.
Wow. I didn’t think it was that hard to figure out.
Assuming you’re serious, you might want to go through the HotAir archives and read the threads on this topic. That question has been answered so many times it would be impossible to miss.
Gregor on January 2, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I predict that before we see Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. merged into a single North American Union, we will first see a civil war fought between the red states and the blues states, or (probably more accurately) a civil war between the urban and the rural areas of the United States.
CyberCipher on January 2, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Years ago, I worked for a company that sold to the railroad industry, and I used to read the trade publications. Living in KC, I’ve tended to pay more attention to some developments than most.
The point of the ‘NAFTA Highway’ and ‘NAFTA Railroad’ is not making the 3 (or 4 if Quebec ever secedes from Canada) North American nations into a single entity. It’s about container ships from the Pacific Rim unloading in Mexico, bypassing the union dockworkers in California, where they can go onto Kansas City Southern de Mexico intermodal trains that run up to the OK/AR border, awfully close to Bentonville, AR. (If you don’t know why that’s an important destination, you aren’t well enough informed to have an opinion on this subject.)
After unloading the containers with inbound freight, the trains can continue up to KC, where the ‘Inland Port’ customs station can get the paperwork together for goods being sent back the other way. The entire enterprise is designed to expedite the flow of goods through Mexico that are not intended to be sold there, but are merely going into or out of the US, crossing the Continental Divide at a low enough latitude as to eliminate the sort of bottlenecks that we’ve seen in recent weeks.
The competition is going to be the larger container vessels that will be able to transit the Panama Canal starting in the middle of the next decade. If they continue to Northeast ports where the Longshoremen must be paid, they might price themselves out of the business. That leaves the South, which is of course already pretty close to Mexico.
The Monster on January 3, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Legal smeagol, what would the public perception be once they set about claiming these lands? Do you really see all those conservative politicians in Texas who passed the strict anti-Kelo legislation taking a stance against one million people on behalf of foreign interests and private freeways? It doesn’t really seem like a political reality.
Shouldn’t we be concentrating our outrage on the overwhelming number of known contraventions against our sovereignty and laws rather than these highly unlikely future contraventions? We should be demanding to know why the other meat packers besides SWIFT haven’t been raided yet. We should be demanding the US government inform us if anyone else is using our SS number which could be determined by a key stroke and a form letter to inform all owners of multiple ss numbers being used. Some of this stuff almost seems like an effort to divert attention away from the known issues.
Perchant on January 3, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Can you name the last time the American people stood up and revolted, at least … on the conservative side? Would you think it impossible that Americans would stand and watch illegal aliens from another country yank our flag down and replace it with their’s? Do you find it hard to believe that Americans just stood by and watched the American flag hung upside down, UNDERNEATH the Mexican flag … on United States Post Office property? Don’t you think it unimaginable that Americans sit and watch as immigrant Muslims burn the American flag on American streets, holding signs that say “kill the Americans” … and not a single American lifts a finger to stop it? In case you missed it … this happened in San Francisco, New York, and several other places.
Or do you think this is all just made up? I’m not sure what you’ve seen in the last thirty years or so that’s led you to believe Americans will stand up and fight this, especially when they don’t even believe it’s happening.
You’re not paying attention. We already know the answer to that question.
You’re absolutely right. We should indeed. But again … please name the last time you saw anyone on the conservative side actually demand ANYTHING.
But then again, you’re the one suggesting that Americans would “never stand for this.” What do you think they’re going to do? Riot?
Really? You think?
Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 1:23 AM
But then again, you’re the one suggesting that Americans would “never stand for this.” What do you think they’re going to do? Riot?
You are wrong when you state that conservatives won’t revolt. They will happily revolt against fake conservative politicians at the ballot box and the politicians know it. This is why Bush wasn’t presented with an amnesty bill for which he could attach his signature in the last session and a NAFTA freeway confiscation of property scheme would be even more unpopular with conservatives and even a lot of liberals would be naturally opposed to it. Politicians believe in self preservation.
Perchant on January 3, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Perchant – I think you place too much faith in the sense of politicians. It was politicians, after all, that got us into the mess with Kelo to begin with. And I don’t think people will scream as loudly as you think over eminent domain abuse for this hypothetical proposed super-highway, when it’s presented as a necessary improvement to the I35 corridor, not as step #2 in the super-secret conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty.
And considering they’re talking about doing this along I35, it’s not hard at all to imagine a million residents displaced and tossed off their land. We’re talking about a highway that runs through San Antonio, Austin, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and then up into Kansas and Oklahoma. Those are pretty populous regions.
But people are looking at this all wrong – this isn’t an attempt to destroy American sovereignty, it’s an attempt to end illegal immigration! Once there are no more borders between Mexico, the US, and Canada, the problem of illegal immigration is greatly reduced. Even better, we can retain just enough regional control to turn the task of watching the borders (eventually what is now the southern border of Mexico, and the northern border of Canada) over to their respective regional governments, and then US politicians can’t be blamed any more for not doing anything. They can just say “hey, it’s their job, not ours.”
Some conservatives have been joking about ending the problem of illegal immigration by annexing Mexico for years. Looks to me like this is one way people are trying to accomplish it.
celeste on January 3, 2007 at 6:22 AM
Was it Peggy Noonan who was Reagan’s speech writer and who coined the phrase “morning in America”? Well, about a year ago she wrote a piece in the WSJ that might have been entitled “Twilight in America”. It’s called A Seperate Peace and it’s on her website. She says that our political, financial, cultural elites know that America is headed for the rocks and are all grabbing what they can while they can. She isn’t screaming CONSPIRACY!, just sadly observing what she sees happening.
Bottom line, folks. It’s up to us.
dhimwit on January 3, 2007 at 7:14 AM
And? What’s your point? Have you seen any evidence that this will actually change anything?
The GOP was recently slaughtered in the mid-terms, mostly because conservatives were sick of watching the GOP act like liberals.
Meanwhile, while 85% of the American public demanded secure borders and NO amnesty … both parties still move full steam ahead on full amnesty.
So … again, what’s your point?
Public opinion and so called “revolt at the ballot boxes” seems to have no effect in altering the actions of the current GOP leadership. And when it comes time to elect the next President, and we see conservatives “revolt at the ballot boxes” … what exactly will be the result? Hillary Clinton????
Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 10:29 AM
You write as if the government can deal with just one problem at a time. We have the ability to take on imminent domain abuse, immigration abuse, congressional abuse. We have committees and offices for every abuse in the world, what the Republicans are lacking are the B*lls to take on these causes. Afraid to raid anymore meat packers, afraid of taking Conyers to the mat, afraid of border enforcement, we are becoming the party of the “afraidy cats”. The leaders should reach back and take a lesson from Reagan. Do what is right and best for the country, explain it to the people and then do it. Forget about unions (air traffic controllers), forget about MSM (calling out the “evil Empire”), take on special interests (lower the tax). Stop some of the excesses and in the long run the people will see the benefit and rally around the party. Don’t become a party of pandering like the donk party.
right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Here it is:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007460
PRCalDude on January 3, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Gregor: What do you suggest?
If you’re looking for armed revolt – millions of American gun owners and fireworks freaks descending in a swarm upon Washington, DC and blowing the shit out of anything that even looks like a politician – then I’m all for it.
In fact, I would argue that assassination is the only way to stop our current crop of assholes in Washington from doing any of this. Voting against them clearly doesn’t scare them – I think some of them will have to die before they realize how badly they’ve pissed off the American people.
mikeomatic on January 3, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Which is fortunate in this instance since it would take some serious b*lls for Republican politicians in Texas to evict a million Texans, seize their property and sell it to foreigners to build a private road.
Perchant on January 3, 2007 at 12:18 PM
PRCalDude, I just read Peggy Noonan’s piece. Thoughtfully written… people are playing musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
ricer1 on January 3, 2007 at 1:01 PM
The fact is, civilizations collapse. This one is no exception, but every ‘intellectual’ you bring this up with will say “America is starting to look like Rome did before it collapsed.” Of course, there was no good civilization to take it’s place after it collapsed. When Ethiopia can do a better job protecting its interests than the U.S, it’s time to start wondering what exactly our politicians are thinking. Hopefully, it doesn’t take another catastrophe to snap us out of the Bush-malaise.
PRCalDude on January 3, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Medved is Russian for bear.
Just saying.
Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 2:02 PM
I don’t disagree with you at all, but obviously to suggest something like that might be a bit excessive. My wish would be for conservatives to be as active as the illegal aliens were when they took to the streets. That is not asking much, yet we seem to be unable to spare one day out of our lives to actually participate in anything significant.
As conservatives, we love to rant about how we won’t tolerate certain things, but when it comes time to actually take action … everyone suddenly claims to be “too busy.”
We become outraged at the site of an upside-down American Flag being raised by illegals. We become outraged when we read that illegals will soon be given access to our social security. We scream and yell when we read that our government will soon pass full amnesty to 30 million illegals. We freak out when hearing that Bush signs an agreement with CAIR to teach our airport security personnel how to handle Muslim passengers. But that’s where our outrage ends. We write about it, whine about it, scream about it … and then silence. We stand on the sidelines and look stupid scratching our heads in an attempt to understand why our leaders don’t seem to be concerned with border security.
A few people commented before the election on how it might be because “conservatives have jobs during the day.”
That’s a bunch of crap. If we were truly serious about what we stand for, it shouldn’t be hard to have the streets in this country packed wall to wall with several million conservative protesters on any given Saturday.
Instead, we manage to embarrass ourselves with “massive protests” which consist of 12 people standing on a street corner. Even more embarrassing is the fact that our protests our usually met with counter-protests in which the liberals manage to draw hundreds or thousands to ANY location, at any time, with an hour’s notice.
We see “million man marches” by the African Americans. We see MayDay walkouts by the illegals in which hundreds of thousands march the streets in multiple cities. And our answer is to send 12 minutemen to the corner of 5th and L.
I’ve attempted to organize protests many times. When Wendy’s was busted using illegal aliens I spent a month attempting to gather conservatives together. Do you know how many people “had the time?” FOUR! Four people out of several million. Pathetic. The rest all used the traditional conservative excuses.
I am just too busy.
I have to take my kids to the movie on Saturday.
Oh, I’d love to but we’re going camping that weekend.
But people like Perchant continue to sit back in their recliners and claim that at some point we’ll reach a magical limit, at which point we’ll suddenly jump out of our seats, cancel all of our plans, and march upon Washington.
Give me a break.
Let’s do a test. I am once again attempting to organize a “large scale” conservative protest against amnesty. Anyone who is interested can email me at invadingamerica@yahoo.com .
I wonder how many HotAir readers who have “had enough” will stand up and take action.
Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 2:15 PM
You’re learning. There is no lack of b*lls in Bush’s administration. They are the definition of arrogance, completely ignoring all polls in which their own base threatens to boot them out of office.
It’s not a lack of b*lls. It’s a lack of interest in what we are saying. It’s caused by the fact that they have an agenda that does not concern us. They have a plan, and they are going to fulfil that plan at all costs.
That plan is in writing and available for all to read. It’s called Building a North American Community.
Start on page 17 at the section titled “What should we do by 2010.
Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Mexico and Canada are a couple of the top producers of oil in the world (in 2004 they were #5 and #8 – http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html). I have started to wonder if we aren’t attempting to sidle up to their oil (including Canada’s shale deposits) before Peak Oil really hits?
This is especially possible with Mexico who is a larger exporter of oil (#9) than Canada. They are more likely to be favorable to a country with a large Mexican population.
keylime on January 3, 2007 at 3:52 PM
One has to wonder “who” told Medved to attack the movement against the NAU.
His rant was so ridiculous and without any factual foundation that I wonder if he was not reading from a script that someone stuck in front of him. I cannot believe that he is that naive that he would risk his creditability by making so many unfounded accusations and that are legally actionable.
The talk shows are getting more and more calls about the NAU and the media is having a hard time keeping it below the radar. Shows like CSPAN and even FoxNews O’Reilly are getting callers that get past the screener and demand to know why the media is not covering the coup d’état by the Bush administration.
I urge those of you that think this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory to read the articles at the August Review
This non profit group was started 25 years ago by people who recognized our politicians no longer represented us in Wash DC but have another agenda….Globalization and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic:
The only hope we have is in the citizens themselves. A grass roots ground-swell is our only hope to address the onslaught of globalization. Such a movement must be based on FACTS, not on opinion or rhetoric. No public debate will ever be won against globalism without definitive and defensible proof of your position.
Globalization promotes regional and global government, a one-world economic system of trade and a form of fascism where global corporations and their elite control the policies and directives of individual governments.
ScottyDog on January 3, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Peak oil is a myth promoted by the Rockefellar Family Trust. We have more oil in the USA than we know what to do with if only the Congress would allow the oil companies to develop the resources.
Back in the 1976 ARCO discovered an oil deposit larger than all the oil in Saudi Arabia at Gull, Island Alaska. The department of Energy told them to cap the well and Congress then declared Gull Island a nature preserve to ensure that the discovery would not be developed. Oil Companies have made numerous discoveries since 1976 all of which have been declared off limits by our own Congress including ANWAR.
If congress lifted the bans on domestic production, we would have no reason to import any oil or be involved in the Middle East. Ask anyone that works in the oil business, not media pundits, they will tell you the same thing.
The laws of supply and demand would kick in and the cost of crude oil would plummet. Now, ask yourself why your own elected representatives continue to block any domestic oil production.
ScottyDog on January 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Your straw man shows you aren’t learning. It’s not something a lame duck president can snap his fingers and make happen, it would need to be authorized by politicians in Texas who desire a political future. If Bush could make it a reality with a stroke of a pen, then I’d be worried because I wouldn’t put anything past him that is for the benefit of his beloved Mexico.
Perchant on January 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Oh and just another question for you all…
When did sea gulls become an endangered species?
ScottyDog on January 3, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Perchant, your arguments have become boring as they have no connection to the real world. Since when do “politicians in Texas” have the power to stop a Federal decision to build a Federal highway? They don’t. If the Federal Government decides to build a freeway through Texas, there’s absolutely nothing Texas can do about it. Why don’t you ask Arizona, California, and Texas how much power they’ve had in getting the Federal Government to assist them in stopping illegal aliens from using their states as doormats? How much luck has Tom Tancredo had?
Even tossing that bit of reality aside, which Texas politician do you see refusing promises of future power from existing and future administrations? Which politicians do you see with the ability to put a dead end on a highway designed to go from Mexico through to Canada. Do you think the Governor of Texas is going to slam his fist on the table and say “not in my state?” And even if that were to happen … is the United States Government going to simply say … “oh. We’re sorry. We won’t build it then.
Right.
This is your argument. It has to be, unless you are claiming the plan does not exist to build the highway. But that would be sort of tough to support, since the entire plan, along with maps and descriptions are posted on several Federal Government websites.
Here’s a question for you:
The fury over this Superhighway has been boiling for several years now. Can you point to a single Texas politician who has publicly protested? How about a Texas politician who has claimed there is no plan to build it?
Nada.
Why would that be? Why would the Governor of Texas not hold a press conference and publicly put the entire theory to rest? Maybe the same reason the AP doesn’t produce Jamil Hussein??? Why would the Bush administration not hold a press conference and publicly put to rest any such thoughts, instead of relying on Tony Snow to issue a poorly worded and misleading phrase “there’s no plan for a “European” Union in the United States?”
The answer to that is … they don’t want it publicized. They are doing everything they can to push the plan through under the radar.
Perchant, so far the only argument you have is … “people would be mad, therefore I don’t believe it’s true.”
By the way …
Which “straw man” are you referring to? I’m not aware of any straw man arguments in any of the factual documentation that I’ve linked to on this thread, or in the comment that you claimed was a “straw man.”
Did you just make that up because it sounded good?
Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 5:34 PM
So anyone want to take bets on him giving a retraction?
Also, I can’t help but wonder if Medved had the courage of his convictions if he would actually stand up and name names. Of course that would actually set him up for a lawsuit, but if he truly believes he has truth on his side why doesn’t he?
Tim Burton on January 3, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Possibly kiss this goodbye too. Food for thought and discussion along with the already voluminous material on the subject. Also interesting are the links.
Emmett J. on January 4, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Here’s the latest.
Gregor on January 4, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Perchant …
Related to your comment that Texas would never allow the highway to be built, you might be interested to know that there are several Texas representatives who are already pissed off about it and seem to be helpless, including Congressman Ron Paul.
Of course, maybe you feel a U.S. Congressman representing Texas is somehow unfamiliar with what’s happening in his own state. He writes about it here, if you bother to read it.
Gregor on January 4, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Also, it’s been almost 24 hours since I asked those interested in “standing up” and getting involved in future protests to email me.
Not a single email.
So much for “Americans won’t stand for it.”
Welcome to Aztlan.
Gregor on January 4, 2007 at 12:43 PM