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 Hawkinss 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 Hawkinss most annoying list. I apologize to President Bush that Hawkins could not find a better pejorative for him than incompetent. Clearly in Hawkinss 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 nations 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 annoyingthat 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?
Ping
Does it hurt discourse? That is an issue.
Certainly, saying "[President Bush's] secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union" is a charge too far. That's no hyperbole. I think he means it literally. You could say that he's being deceitful, but the reader need only decide for him / herself.
What I believe is what Mr. Robert Pastor said, he (and presumably President Bush) wants to "deepen" North America. It's not the same as losing our sovereignty but I'm against anything that would put a government-created cesspool like Mexico on an equal plane with the United States of America.
Folks, that IMHO and in a nut shell, is what Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.D (Harvard), is all about. Ya simply cannot blame the guy for using some tried and true hype-techniques to sell his books to as many people as possible. (Try his "Black Gold," loaded with hype and tripe AND dynamite must-know information)
Of course, he is countering Government Hype which is preparing to spring SPP as a beautiful thing on our grandchildren for an "up or down" vote after "decades of incrementalism," and maybe (LOL) a lot of disinformation.
OK, some folks are in a panic about SPP. Good. Maybe that will keep it on the big radar so that ever-diminishing number of voters who can still read and write can more properly evaluate it without the help of some fey movie critic like Medved.
Of course, by the time it comes up for a vote, the English Version of the instructional pamphlet may be somewhat difficult to come by.
¿Sería posible qué no me entiendas, amigo?
Do you understand English? The written word? Let's see: develop and implement a program for ECONOMIC INTEGRATION and development through North America. And you think this means... the AMERO??? Only someone playing with a jigsaw puzzle but calling it an economic forecast of the future could think that.
I think your posts on Y2K are right on target. In the late 1990s, I worked for a Fortune 100 company with those legacy systems (accounting, payroll, material management, asset management, pensions, etc). That one company spent in excess of $40 million preparing for Y2K (testing, reprogramming, and in minor cases replacement of systems). Many actions were just short-term fixes, to be followed by new system implementation after 2000. This was a huge effort on behalf of both the private and public sector.
As such, your earlier estimate of $500 million worldwide seems entirely too low. Compliance effort to meet the SEC disclosure requirements for publicly traded companies probably exceeded that number, alone.
In December, 1999, Deputy Secretary of Defense John J. Hamre estimated the cost for getting DOD Y2K compliant at $3.6 billion.
Carlos Gutierrez: from exile to corporate leadership: CEO and president/Kellogg Company won the Chairman's Productivity Cup three years in a row while heading up the Mexico division - Top Ten Latinos Latino Leaders: The National Magazine of the Successful American Latino, Dec, 2003 by Miriam Martinez
FACED WITH a global decline or stagnation in cereal sales, Carlos Gutierrez took the helm at Kellogg and reinvented the way that millions of busy people around the world eat breakfast, He is the only Latino CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Not bad for a man whose family was exiled and its livelihood confiscated during the Cuban Revolution.
Born in Havana on November 4, 1953, Gutierrez was six when Fidel Castro's guerrillas triumphantly rode into the capital, trapping Gutierrez's family in Miami where they were on vacation.
With their pineapple export business confiscated by communists, and banned from going home, the family had to start again from scratch.
"My father was devastated, but it brought out the essence of his work ethic, something that affected the entire family. We pulled together in Miami and embraced the great opportunities this country offered us to start over," he says.
Pedro, the father, got a job with Heinz in Mexico and then started Lip his own business in which Carlos worked. A recession, however, drove the firm into deep water and Carlos to Mexico City.
....
"Drat those "secret agenda" words in my quote... But At least I didn't say "conspiracy" that way I can weasel about using the word "is" to defend myself... yes yes yes....."
As clever as you might affect yourself to be, you DO know they're the same thing. Only a rube would take them seriously or come to their defense.
LOL
No brainer: Go with a business development, free trade operation with America and Canada helping citizens in all three countries achieve freedom and prosperity.
Hedgetrimmer: You think Mexico and Canada and America are doing a "bad" thing. Do you therefore posit Mexico should have picked the alternate door?
Are you even aware of what you are subliminally suggesting?
When illegals don't have a reason to be in the US illegally, they might just stop crossing the border. Incentives can work. There are rotten incentives I've seen, however.
This is not a rotten agreement or incentive. It's the most constructive path for near perfectly slicing through problems affecting all three countries.
If Mr. Corsi wishes to communicate his "not a conspiracy" as a concern, he should do just that. But positing the Amero as a "real deal" has about as much chance of actually happening as water not seeking its own level.
Thank you very much for the better estimate of the actual cost of Y2k remediation!
Somevere.. a distant bugle laments, evrey time you write this, you know...
Sincerely,
Do you really believe that the ruling / government classes of Mexico would "Go with a business development, free trade operation with America and Canada" if they had to choose and could not profit from both?
There is one who might. María Asunción Aramburuzabala, Forbes ranked 382 among The World's Richest People In 2006. She's made some astonishing comments about citizens needing more opportunities. Also a fairly remarkable story of how she had to rescue and take charge of the family business -- not easy for a mujer in Mexicorruption.
She later marrided our man in Mexico Ambassador Antonio O. Garza.
Even the CFR task force acknowledged Mexico's corruption and questioned the government's trustworthiness.
Why don't you just use the correct spelling?
Yes, I do believe they would rather deal in a legit world; especially given all that the terrorist network has done to and has been doing to "ruling classes/governments" throughout the world for many years.
OTOH, Mexico would have to conspire as Hugo Chavez has, in Venezuela, to build to stockpile massive weapons of mass destruction to hold that "ring" of power in power. Do you think the "ruling class/government" of Mexico has that kind of power? Do you think the "ruling class/government" of Mexico thinks they can actually have a relationship with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Cuba? Iran? Syria? A level playing field? A "comrade" in arms?
I think the ruling class/government in Mexico is no dummy whatsoever -- either with regard to ANY kind of relationships with the Axis of Evil and its minions - versus dealing with the very reputable United States who does in fact have a royal flush in their hands to stave off tyranny by gangsters with illicit weaponry demanding totalitarian rule, all countries submit.
think my comment is an accurate summation of Corsi's position. Deal with it, or quit whining.
I think your comment is an attack against a straw man that you name Jerome Corsi, not the author, editor and reporter published as Jerome Corsi.
Conservatives who take the Constitution, God-given rights, and national security seriously take the Constitution Party seriously and support it.
Opponents like you and Medved seem to prefer to baseless insults as described by the topic article and your example.
There are even more Conservatives who take the Constitution, God-given rights, and national security seriously who think the Constitution Party is possibly rightleaning but will never have a hounds' tooth chance in hell of ever making a positive difference in elections.
Constitutionalist party arose out of cleaning up the fraggy edges of the Libertarian party. Both are small, third parties, fractured even more through the attempts to address the fraggier edges of former groups. It resembles dissolution, actually. Even tho the intent of the CParty is "better".
The Constimatooshunalist Party barely takes itself seriously. Why should I?
Now here you're definitely talking about an entity different from the Constitution party. Were you using the wrong spelling again?
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.