Yes, Kelso.
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?
Yes, Kelso.
Can we get back to the Kelo decision, or do want to pass on that? If so, I will understand.
Are you a union man? In the Featherbedders Union?
It is evident that you are not going to opine on the Kelo decision. But then, your silence is opinion enough for me, and I suspect is opinion enough for everyone else reading this who has an interest in preserving the Union of States.
Go west, young man. Fresh markets for all that snake oil in your wagon.
Of course you could add the fact that there are private operators of other toll roads in the US. Did you notice that there are over a 100 private bidders for the PA turnpike.
What is the NAU transportation plan?
I think most of FR has opined on the Kelo decision. If you wish to hear those opinions again, why not begin by explaining what Kelo has to do with any of the topics discussed on this thread?
Please ping me if anyone manages to see Ficklin give a straight answer to a straight question. Thanks.
Answered in my reply 273.
Karl Rove hired me to keep you mixed up. He was correct when he told me it would be an easy job.
Yes.
But the TTC is not considered "private use." You really need to think this kind of stuff through.
Conservative dissenting justices.
I'll side with the conservatives.
So do I. So what's your point? Do you have one?
A position that is debatable. It is not really "public use" is it when it merely pits importers against domestic production and transport. Especially since it is evident there is already plenty of infrastructure for transport. This needs to be more fully thought through by you, when you look at the facts as to who really is the beneficiary of the expropriations. There is an ulterior motive for the TTC.
Even the White House has openly acknoweldged as beneficiaries...the Importers of Chinese and East Asian manufactures. [The explicit monetary justification for...and incentivizing the whole project...and diverting around the "spendier" longshoremans' unionized ports in U.S. West Coast states] As against domestic Producers. As against domestic cartage.
So of course, the Import Lobbyists are not for real free trade. Certainly not within the country. They are for misusing governmental authority to abet subsidizing themselves and their interest...the imports. This is why I have often noted the import lobbyists are phoneys. They are no longer, if they have ever been, for free trade.
They are expropriating to abet their segment (imports)...and adding injury to insult...the domestic manufacturing firms and cartage firms are going to be TAXED to support this governmental intrusion on the market.
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.