I got on CPR radio briefly during the interview with Dr. Corsi. He was, it is safe to say, quite unhappy with my post below, and accused me of doing much the same as Michael Medved and John Hawkins in dismissing his arguments with ad hominems. When I pointed out that I had specifically avoided that, he claimed that "debunking" constituted a personal attack. Obviously, it doesn't.
It is fair to point out that I started with the assumption that Dr. Corsi is wrong, most specifically with regard to his allegations that President Bush supports this North American Union, and that it is imminent. Do I believe that there are academics who would support a North American Union? Sure. Do I believe that the professors that he mentioned on the show support it? Yep. Do I believe that Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page endorsed it? I'd like to see the editorial myself, but I do know he was very much an open borders kind of conservative. Update: Look here for a good discussion of Bartley
immigration policy prescriptions, which apparently included in 2001 a call for a North American Union.
But none of that makes a story. That President Bush might believe in a North American Union makes it a story, and that's where Corsi's argument is missing a crucial link; hence the "connecting the dots" language of the conspiracy theorist.