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?
Be as hamfisted as you like.
Thank you for your thoughts on the border situation.
John Hawkins is no conservative. He mimics the many in today's political environment who call themselves that to gain political advantage, then scuttle the actual conservatives whenever they get the chance.
what are you talking about?
Elsewhere on this thread I posted my shock at Mr. Medved's rantings on his radio show. Today I learned of his townhall blog. Pretty much the same stuff.
"bastards and creeps and jug-heads and drunks and reprobates" (there's tons more) Me thinks Mr. Medved is reliving his days as a 1970s liberal "debating" conservatives. It's how liberals debate.
I have never heard nor read anything from Mr. Corsi or any others who are concerned about SPP and such that suggested that they have gone over the edge.
Mr. Medved says, there are "a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state"
Mr. Medved says that opponents believe there's a "malevolent, hidden agenda to abolish the USA."
Can you find, in a legitimate source, where Mr. Corsi or any other critic has based his opposition on fears of abolishing the US of A?
"If those jerks could be so wrong about Y2K, why should you give the slightest credence to their warnings and alarms over this latest hysteria?"
I represent that!
Y2k, that is. Mr. Medved has no knowledge of the millions of lines of legacy "big iron" code world wide. Had that code not been corrected in the years leading up to 2000 -- actually years before 2000 -- a lot of people would have thought the world ended as routine commerce crashed hourly.
Later he says it again (for emphasis?), "the brain-dead, laughableY2K scare."
Mr. Medved says that he's never seen do many trying to push discussion "out of the sunlight of sanity and rational discourse and into the fever swamps of sickness and delusion and dementia."
Then he screams "TREAT THEM WITH THE DERISION AND CONTEMPT AND DISREGARD THEY SO RICHLY DESERVE."
Then he may have really stepped in it. He mentions the Paul Revere Society and asks "what happened to the funds you contributed" to it? Possible law suit coming? He's accusing Michael Savage of embezzlement? Gee, I wonder which one will be Rosie and which one will be the Donald?
Mr. Medved finishes by saying, "I will never lie to you."
Hmmm, I think he's going to be Rosie.
Medved shouldn't forget the federal government bankrolled the massive effort to rewrite software that had potential Y2K problems.
It was due to a massive influx of money, that Y2K was rendered harmless. If the government hadn't spent that money, the global corporations would have had to do it.
It is an unstated goal of this and previous administrations to protect global corporations whatever the cost to taxpaying US citizens.
I'd be happy if he'd just get control and admit his ignorance about things such as the MM/DD/YY, DDDYY problem that pervaded virtually every legacy mainframe system in the world.
In the "old days" of punch cards we did not have very much core and a mainframe disk pack the size of a basketball stored 29meg bytes.
Very few companies wanted to spend the money to fix the problem as hardware advances gave us more and more storage capability until . . .
Those were the days when we used a riding mouse.
The crazy is on the loose again, I see.
This is not the first time Medved has attacked the advocacy of constitutional conservativism or its supporting researchers.
What is a Constimatooshunalist?
Given that his list of "conservatives" that annoyed him are actually liberals, I'm inclined to believe you.
Could you provide more information about how Hawkins calls himself a conservative but uses the self-label to "scuttle the actual conservatives whenever they get the chance" ?
I'm not that familiar with Hawkins, so I would appreciate more information.
Most of us recognized the need for this valuable dual use national defense asset. It's proved to be even more valuable for civilians than I imagined at the time. But, I didn't travel much in those days.
The issues were highway routing decisions, not the highway system itself. Lots of businesses affected as well as worries about despoiling scenic areas. That's what I remember and a search for 50th anniversary documents pretty much prove that the "end as they knew it" was in no way a factor -- unless you were among the few who owned a motel on the old highway.
should be
The man totally lost it. The only "light-hearted" moments were his oft repeated claim that SPP conspiracy nuts were shrill -- he on the other hand was merely passionate.
Thanks for that clarification.
A member of the Constimatooshunalist Party.
"his oft repeated claim that SPP supporters were shrill -- he on the other hand was merely passionate."
Not surprising I guess, that same exact thing happens here at FR on a regular basis!
"Your writing has been aimed at selling books by appealing to the paranoid instincts of those who don't possess the critical thinking skills necessary to see you for the opportunist and demagogue you really are."
sounds like a quote one might have found over at DU when Unfit for Command was released.
"The problem is the sheeple don't realize how dangerous this is to their freedom."
I think the sheeple 'doth protest too much'...ever notice how long these threads get...they allow for very little discussion about the article posted because those who wish to discuss the topic end up having to defend wanting to discuss the topic. This is done purposefully. There is no other logical explanation for why those who would, as they say, feel this was little more than a 'conspiracy', yet spend so much time on these threads, 'hating' anyone serious about the subject. If that's how they really felt, they would just be indifferent and not care. Instead, we get the fake outrage, just like Medved's.
lol. No kidding. I thought to ping you; but instead wished you well on your holiday with loved ones!
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.