Yeah, man, anybody can see that.
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?
Eastbound posted the link, we merely pointed out what was there.
From a website you recommended in your comment #249.
These guys aren't very bright.
Thanks again. Mr. Michael Medved's derogation of the Y2k threat started this. It was all a fraud, he charged.
To be fair, there was quite a hullabaloo raised over electrical systems and such. That turned out to be unwarranted, I believe.
The worldwide total is almost implausible. I know that some (most?) U.S. entities bundled other changes with Y2k remediation. So a lot of additional work got done.
You're probably right. As with any crisis, the tactic is often to bury a bunch of other things in the number to qualify for scarce budget dollars. Additionally, I'm sure some systems were just totally scrapped for brand new systems. Regardless, the numbers are huge. If the number was only half, it would be $100 billion. Still a whole lot of money.
BTW, I've always thought Medved was a just another useful idiot.
About my Kelso question to you. Comment? Or do you choose to continue to obfuscate?
Yeah, man, anybody can see that.
Kelso?
That's a very serious matter, 1rudeboy. I hope someone was able to decode the readings. I'm sure there was more to those poems than a mere "I buried Paul".
Thanks for that link! A lot of interesting tidbits to ponder. Maybe We have some current or former *shareholders* on this forum?
Excellent grading. Those were devastating...
I wonder if and when we see Mark Steyn finally weigh in and disparage the SPP...and the President's curious ideas about sovereignty...for even close to the same concerns...if he will suddenly become personna non grata as well among the supposed keepers of the flame.
Yes, Kelso.
You know, the timely decision that opened the way for private property to be stolen by the North American Homeland road builders.
Second, if TTC 35 is built as a PPP, the State of Texas, not the investors, owns the road and the land. The private sector operator leases the road and the land.
Wanting to destroy the Union must be a family tradition. ;>
But it's good for the 'markets', don'tcha know.
/s
I heard he was a regular at Miss Hatties whorehouse.
BTW, it is Wiki, not Wicki
Yes, I know. But are you going to deny that the TTC is part of the NAU transportation plan again?
Which TTC are you talking about?
Yes, I know. But thanks for the correction again.
Old Ben? It was mentioned somewhere that he may have been complicit in Lincoln's assassination.
'Union Busters' takes on a whole new meaning, huh? How's that for a double-intendre?
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.