I like to read WorldNetDaily for my news. I like the layout. I like being able to scroll down the list of headlines to see what catches my eye. No photos getting in the way. No having to hunt for unusual news. It's all there, either on Page 1 or Page 2. I read what interests me and ignore the rest.
WND appears to subscribe to some conspiracy theories on occasion, and most of the time I ignore those articles. Yesterday, though, they had a story that might be conspiracy-mongering, but then again it might not, and I'm not sure if I should ignore it. Here's how the article opens:
Are secret meetings being held between the corporate and political elites of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to push North America into a European Union-style merger?
Is President Bush's reluctance to control the border and enforce laws requiring deportation of foreigners who enter the country illegally part of a master plan to all but eliminate borders between the U.S., Canada and Mexico?
Does the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America include a common currency that would scrap the dollar in favor of what some are calling the "amero"?
It may be the biggest story of the 21st century, but few press outlets are telling it. In fact, until very recently, few in the U.S. were aware of the plans and even fewer denouncing what appears to be the implementation of an effort some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."
CNN's Lou Dobbs is against it. Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist is against it. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is against it. But it's hard to know exactly what "it" is, and that's a big part of why they're against it.
Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress.
Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.
The article includes a lot of criticism of the plan and/or its secrecy by people from the famous (Phyllis Schlafly) to the obscure (freelance political writer Alan Burkhart). It references a report that came from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), usually a red flag signalling conspiracy nuts. I'm not sure what to think.
There have been reports lately about establishing a Mexican customs port in Kansas City, Missouri, which may need to be considered Mexican soil. It would be part of a North American SuperCorridor.
There are enough questions raised in this article to cause me alarm, but there are enough red flags to cause me to want to dismiss this as mere fever-swamp gas.
Is President Bush saying the minimum on immigration that he must in order to get the American people to go along with a plan that could destroy American sovereignty? Or are the conspiracy nuts getting good enough at telling their tales to fool even a skeptic like me?
Say it ain't so, Geo. Say it ain't so.