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?
comment #14: Well Jerome, believing that President Bush is going to abolish the Constitution and destroy our currency, the most respected currency in the world, by merging it with the meaningless Canadian dollar and the basket case peso thereby crushing our economy is, well, kooky. Do you also think he'll accomplish all this by January 2009? This has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks. Hawkins and Medved are just stating the obvious. If you're going to incite this kind of conspiratorial nonsense maybe you should grow thicker skin.Both the above comments are substantive criticisms of Prof. Corsi’s newly-found “victim-complex.” You’ll note that both were ignored . . . placing you in the unenviable position of complaining that some are forced to defend themselves personally when they choose to avoid the abstract issue.comment #23: Prof. Corsi needs to be reminded that it's not difficult to look-up his previous statements on the topic. In other words, one cannot run about claiming that Pres. Bush has a "secret plan" to dissolve the United States of America without taking the risk of being called a conspiracist. Moreover, one cannot defend himself of the charge by simply stating that the SPP exists. His problem is his contention why it exists.
I've attempted to correct my wording error (above replies)
This should have said "SPP conspiracy believers;" i.e., those who believe that SPP is real and a threat of some sort to the sovereignty of the US of A.
Mr. Medved thinks that the SPP is not even in the works and those who disagree are described by Mr. Medved by just about every abusive or contemptuous word or phrase known to man.
It's the nasty small-minded trait that many 1960s and 1970s liberals brought with them when they came to the right side and fled their traditional, patriotic Democrat Party which the New Left has converted to the Rat Party.
They perfected this abominable practice mostly against Barry Goldwater and us supporters.
Exactly!
I am reminded of something David Horowitz said about the left -- and why can it not be true of the many former liberals, who though welcomed on the right side should have left their nasty left habits when they came right. People like Mr. Medved for example.
Mr. Horowitz said that for the left, "The issue is not the issue."
Now I've always taken that to mean that issues are weapons.
Thus we indeed do have to "defend wanting to discuss the topic" but even before that we have to discuss the "issue" of whether we are or are not all those names they call us.
"This is done purposefully." Yes it is.
I would argue just one point with Kimberly GG. To wit, the statement that "Instead, we get the fake outrage, just like Medved's."
I heard Mr. Medved's agitation as he exposed his feeeeeeeelings on his radio show. He ain't faking it.
Hilarious that your comment appears directly below mine. Heck, the only people on this thread "limiting" discourse are the ones complaining it is being "limited."
Horowitz also very succinctly described those people who, unable to defend their own positions, simply question the motives of their detractors thinking it is enough.
Let's see what Mr. Medved has to say, shall we?
Concerning the feds, the entire horror story about “North American Union” is based upon the “Security and Prosperity Partnership,” an utterly innocuous, open, above-board, well-advertised and widely publicized initiative to promote inter-governmental cooperation . . . .Who's limiting discourse now, using the techniques that hedgetrimmer correctly identifies, yet incorrectly applies?
See what I mean?
Thank you clarifying Mr. Medved's position, you are right - and I remember that indeed he did acknowledge SPP. I was remiss in not adding "in the works as anything like that which is described by the 'nuts'". But nevertheless..
Truth is far better that my ego. This is refreshing -- and helps zero-in on real issues.
Let's bracket the target some more by asking about the use of the word innocuous.
I read the North American Community proposal. It shunned an EU-type arrangement, it claimed that it was not an attempt to dismantle sovereignty, and it (most important for me) acknowledged the Mexican problems of corruption and trustworthiness.
As I understood it, it would allow free flow among the sovereign countries of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. The borders would be better enforced by concentrating on North America as an entity, it claimed. Inventive, unprecedented cooperation among the three countries would be required.
Not even Medved denies that agencies in all three governments are talking and planning. It did propose a 2010 date to effect some or all proposals, I believe.
Here is where I fire another round, stepping closer to a target, at least I believe so. I am not aware that Mr. Corsi or anyone generally recognized as a "player" has ever said that the U.S. of A. as a sovereign country will cease to exist. This is one of those issues that is not the "issue;" it is a faux issue and serves only as an excuse to attack, attack, attack.
Fire for effect: I am totally against any "Community" that includes Mexico until that government-created cesspool becomes a real country. That ain't innocuous IMO.
Yeah, what hedgetrimmer said.
I would not however say, "Treason abounds and Mr. Medved supports it!"
Now on to my thoughts, not directly related to SPP.
These "hot button" issues threads -- appear to be all economics-related issues; specifically "cheap" labor with its "threat" to sovereignty to some degree or other, IMO.
To wit, migrant labor (mislabeled as immigration), labor arbitrage, technology-enabled cross-border business functions.
There's no question that there are direct economic benefits for some and indirect benefits (yards get cut cheap, Wal Mart) for others.
So even without SPP there's "guest workers" and "globalization".
We need lawful immigration and free, fair trade but do we really need a massive "guest workers" program and "globalization" as they appear to be evolving?
Good grief... is all this heavy breathing really just about a freakin' *road*??
Can somebody explain to me how a road threatens the foundation of this country?
". . . 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."
Out of 62 posts, rudeboy, you could find only TWO so-called "substantive" criticisms that were ignored?
I think you just made my point.
And you might want to check again...there are several replies to #14, including one by me, and the other post is yours. I found nothing substantive in it and therefore, no reply.
Corsi also loves the Longshoremen...remember their strike in Long Beach shutting down the docks of the entire West Coast during the anti-WTO protests?
As far as it looks to me - we have another instance of certain extreme elements getting together to undemine capitalism.
I believe it's the purpose of road not the road itself. Of course, that does not threaten the foundation of our Republic. But some see the administering of the commercial purpose of the road as something that will cut back our treasured heritage of representative government.
To wit, it is to connect Mexican seaports to the rest of North America thus bypassing all those pesky American Longshoreman, truck drivers, and such. It transcends borders I believe and will require international cooperation to administer it.
I will be happy to hear from y'all that it ain't so.
Of course, the people who will lose their property should the road be built have personal concerns.
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.