Posted on 01/05/2007 10:48:25 AM PST by jmc813
Conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News has now decided to join Michael Medved in a new ad hominem attack by using a disparaging adjective to call me a name (“kooky”) and placing me No. 3 in the list of the 20 “people on the right” he finds most annoying.
Hawkins places me between No. 2 Mark Foley, whom Hawkins characterizes as a “page-molesting pervert,” and No. 4 Duke Cunningham, the congressman Hawkins notes is “going to jail for 8 years after taking a bribe.” I am honored to be included on any list John Hawkins wishes to create. But, as far as I can determine, my offense to Hawkins involves writing with the scope of the 1st Amendment, an offense that Hawkins considers somewhat worse than taking bribes, but not quite as bad as making salacious approaches to underage male employees.
I first want to thank Hawkins for his continuing campaign to draw attention to my arguments.
Second, I wonder how much additional writing I will have to produce before Hawkins reduces himself to the “liar, liar” ranting stage Michael Medved exhibited in his recent emotional tirade published on Townhall.com. I guess I will have to read more of Hawkins’s writing to determine if I find his views annoying, but upon introspection I find I have no emotional reaction whatsoever, even to his characterization that I am somehow “annoying” to him. Perhaps President Bush drew solace that he was listed seven positions below me on Hawkins’s “most annoying” list. I apologize to President Bush that Hawkins could not find a better pejorative for him than “incompetent.” Clearly in Hawkins’s hierarchy to be “kooky” in writing a political commentary is much more annoying to him than to be merely “incompetent” in conducting the affairs of the nation’s highest elected post.
Arguing that my writings advance a “completely moronic North American conspiracy theory,” Hawkins linked to an old post he had written on his blog last summer. In an exchange published in July on HUMAN EVENTS’ Right Angle blog, I answered these and other objections raised by Hawkins. The exchange ended when Hawkins chose not to respond. Hawkins has never answered my last specific rebuttals published on the blog. Merely repeating his initial arguments would be considered “non responsive” in traditional debate theory.
Besides, I have never argued a “North American conspiracy.” The European Union and the Euro are realities today, not a conspiracy theory. So too, North American integration is proceeding rapidly right now, fully documented, as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America attests if you reference the Department of Commerce website SPP.gov. Equally, the Trans-Texas Corridor is proceeding rapidly, as documented by the Texas Department of Commerce website. If either the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America or the Trans-Texas Corridor is a conspiracy, the conspiracy is being perpetrated by government officials on their public websites.
We will grant that the now public writings of those who advanced the European Union, such as the memoirs of EU intellectual architect Jean Monnet, confess after the fact that a stealth method was pursued to create the European Union. As Christopher Booker and Richard North, co-authors of the 2003 book, “The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union,” write that Jean Monnet “knew that only by operating in the shadows, behind a cloak of obscurity could he one day realize his dream.” Architects of North American integration, such as Robert Pastor of American University, breathe new life into stealth politics when suggesting openly that a new 9/11 crisis may be just the event needed to advance his agenda for creating the “North American Community” he openly professes.
At any rate, I invite Hawkins to resume his debate with me. To make the process easy, we will link to the exchange. Seeing that I wrote the last rejoinder there, the next move appears to be up to Hawkins. Is Hawkins up to calm, rational debate, or does he want to leave his comments at the level of calumny, an ad hominem attack which always belies an inability to win the argument any other way?
My writing has been aimed at making sure that North American integration does not advance to the point where a North American Union emerges after what may be a decades-long incremental process. I want to be sure that the United States does not follow the template set in place by how the European Union and the euro emerged over some fifty years, driven by an intellectual elite and evolving step-by-step from an initial, seemingly innocuous continental steel and coal agreement.
What is it exactly that Hawkins finds annoying—that a NAU and the Amero could be the end result of the North American integration currently happening, or that I might suggest the Bush Administration could be following the Jean Monnet path intentionally?
Considering Corsi has shown no interest this "Constimatooshunalist party" that you say exists, why do you expect him to run for their nomination?
You linked to the Constitution Party web page, not the "Constimatooshunalist Party."
I still don't see evidence that a "Constimatooshunalist Party" exists outside of your assertions.
I didn't realize that the Army logo was a borderless map also. Surely,that doesn't mean that there is no border as in the NAU. Probably,some government bureaucrat screw up./s
I'm happy to hear that your Congressman writes you back. :-)
ROTFLOL
Yes, I did see that, in passing. :-)
Good description. Thanks!
I cannot help comparing today's "news" in the MSM with the days of John Cameron Swayze, the first network evening newscaster.
As the TV network news replaced radio and newspapers we still got a lot of news (though proved to be biased). You really didn't have to do too much to be reasonably well informed.
Today there just ain't much real news available to the apolitical, Government / media can just about have their way on anything. IMO.
Joint exercises is one thing. We've been doing war games since WW2. But this seems to from as I understand it go a lot deeper into forging a multinational DHS and military. Washington would be spinning in his grave. We alone {the soverign citizens of the United States} can be the sole guaranteers of our own national defense, freedoms, government, and Constitutional rights. No treaties should come before that. I am against any such alliances which subvert the intentions of the founding fathers and the Contents of the Constitution of the United States making this nation come under a multinational type government no matter how limited the scope of it may be.
I agree with you about joint exercises but this is a little more. When they start changing the names of the U.S.Army Fifth to US Army North that includes Canada and probably Mexico. I can even imagine taking a few troops and training them to cooperate with an emergency or castrophy in one of our neighboring countries as we have done for many years all over the world.
The A and 5 of the insignia look the same but is now on the breastplate of the eagle that is covering the borders of the U.S. Most of the eagles used like this normally have equal or even wings on each side. Can you figure out what has happened to the left wing? It almost looks likes a head at the tip of the left wing. I really need a larger picture to see it better.
Changing the subject a little, but now is the time to buy the old insignias, army maps. flags, etc. for antiques or collector items. Proof that we were once a sovereign nation for your grandchildren.
I think what you are seeing is the tip of Alaska or the Alaska Penn. The color of the map is what makes it look like a part of the wing but the wings are equal as near as I can tell.
I've got my share of insignias be careful buying on E-bay for example though. I saw one cruise patch for my ship showing a port visit to Perth Australia. The only problem was it had been in dry-dock all that year back in the states. LOL
I think you are absolutely right: it IS about the State of Believing. Minutes later, I'm still writing this post to you, after pausing, still pondering the state of belief in re conspiracies, and other parts of the human psyche which would encourage one to fasten onto conspiracies.
As Kansas City’s International Affairs and Trade Office continues to accelerate its global outreach, it has been at the forefront of activity as Mexico expanded its deep water Pacific ports, cities in Canada stepped up transportation discussions and Asian markets looked for shortcuts to avoid the congestion at ports on the West Coast. The International Affairs and Trade Office, with the help of Kansas City SmartPort, The Greater Kansas City Foreign Trade Zone, The Kansas City Customs Office, TFM and Kansas City Southern facilitated the first shipment starting from Shanghai, China, through Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico and into Kansas City. Missouri. Three Dragon Boats included in the shipment were a donation from the Chinese Government to the Kansas City Asian advisor and president of the “Society with Friendship to China.”--end snip
West Coast Democrats do not support anything useful or productive which might assist "business", but union workers have a tendency to protest and hamper (if not have other workers sabatogue) port operations. Obviously, those serious about the markets have found other routes.
This thread is also about people who respond to criticism by calling it insults and baseless. I think my comment is an accurate summation of Corsi's position. Deal with it, or quit whining.
Can something that Mr. Medved declares with such authority be trusted? That is an issue as well as his surprisingly insolent remarks directed at Mr. Corsi, et al.
Perhaps some comments by the point man for the Fed on Y2K Mr. Edward Kelley, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, were grabbed by Mr. Medved and run with.
To wit, at a speech at the Cosmos Club, Washington, D.C. March 30, 2000 Mr. Kelly began by saying, "I have no doubt it is highly unusual, if not unique, for a speaker to rise here to discuss a non-event. To our pleasant surprise, that is exactly what Y2K turned out to be."
Looks like Mr. Medved is right -- and I must have been imagining Y2k work done for most of the five years prior to 2000.
But of course Mr. Kelly begins to explain exactly why Y2k turned out to be a "non-event" beginning with this:
"First of all, one must begin a Y2K retrospective by dealing with the question of whether this really was a serious threat or was it simply vastly over-hyped. The short answer is, you bet it was a serious threat. No reputable computer expert that I know of disagrees with that, and I can verify this assessment from a very up-close and personal perspective. . .
"We at the Fed examined approximately 90 million lines of our own code contained in thousands of programs and had to remediate approximately 10 percent of them.
[Ten percent is about everyone's experience. But you had to look at all code to find the ten percent, even if you used special tools. Simple searches using an editor could not locate all date-related fields and usage. Then you had to look for "ripple effects" and test for unintended consequences. You could not take a chance and Mr. Kelly explains why.]
"[After the FED remediation project was finished there was but one major problem at the FED which was quickly fixed.]. What if there had been many thousands of such instances and malfunctions in the endless interconnections between systems had metastasized the errors faster than the technicians could address them. It would have been a nightmare. If preparing for Y2K had been ignored, that is exactly what would have happened. But it was not ignored, and the massive effort paid off in the event. . .
"In the United States, we turned in one of our finest national performances in rising to meet a crisis. In retrospect, we can now see that Y2K was made to order for a classic American 'can do' response. It was a specific, clearly identifiable and definable threat with an immutable, moment-in-time deadline. It was massive in scope, required the efforts of millions of people and the expenditure of billions of dollars, but it could be, and was, dealt with." [End quotes]
If you still believe Mr. Medved then I really would like to hear his explanation refuting Mr. Kelly and the efforts of millions of people [not all programmers of course] and the expenditure of billions of dollars.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/2000/20000330.htm
Mr. Medved was wrong about Y2k. Period. Now, what about his other claims?
To include other important facts, many shops bundled changes together with Y2k remediation; that was common. The changes their own requirements plus catching up to vendor (IBM for example) required changes due to vendor software upgrades unrelated to Y2k.
What does Carlos Gutierrez have to do with the Council of Americas? Is he on its Board, or something?
“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.”
--Jerome Corsi, writing in Human Events, North American Union to Replace USA?, May 19, 2006.
Poor Jerome. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.