WELCOME TO USARNORTH
The new logo for the former US Army 5th, now US Army North.
As in North America(n) Union, no doubt!
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?
Internet fights have ZERO impact on the real world.
LOL
No
HE HE! ;)
I see this SPP thing as a RFP. We citizens are the shareholders. The corporation is putting out RFPs. No contract had better been signed! We just want to make sure the corporation does not go too far on this SPP proposal.
I am not going to buy a car without study and talking about it - why should any shareholder shut up about our concerns with SPP? And in my case, Mr. Pastor!
From comments made in 2002 before the Candian House of Commons.
What does Robert Pastor mean when he says he proposes "how to deepen North America"?
Well he learned from the European Union and "its nearly fifty years of experience what should be avoided as well as what could be adapted for North America."
Say what? "We also lack a vision of an inclusive identity that would inspire citizens of all three countries to think of themselves also as North Americans."
You got that straight! The government-created cesspool called Mexico ain't no American IMO.
The U.S. favors unilateralism, Canada and Mexico each deals with us bi-laterally, Dual-bilateralism. "This hurts the chance to create a true North American Community. 'Dual-bilateralism' is short-sighted and corrosive."
I like Dual-bilateralism.
But noooo, Create a North American Commission (NAC).
Create a North American Parliamentary Group, it's not a legislature but the "Parliamentary Group might raise the sensitivity of American Congressmen".
Like, stop our Congress from offending Mexicorruption by banning their borken down trucks from going like a bat out of hell driven by a $4/hr kid who hasn't slept in two days?
Next step, Permanent Court on Trade and Investment
Mexicorruption has gots to have money, need a North American Development Fund -- "Mexico needs $20 billion a year for ten years, just for infrastructure." That should about do it -- Oh! Don't forget them Social Security checks!
Oh! Transportation! We need transportaion.
Not to worry, it's covered. "new highway corridors on the Pacific Coast and into Mexico . . . the regulatory agencies should negotiate a plan that would permit mergers of the railroads and development of high-speed rail corridors."
Currency! What about currency.
"Mexicans and Canadians do not want to be incorporated into the United States, and they are ambivalent about adopting the American dollar, but they are more willing to become part of a single country of North America and of a unified currency, like the 'Amero'".
STOP!
Next RFP, please.
Thank you for the link!
I represent that!
What does impact the real world, I know about money, getting elected to office and such -- but I mean us little people; other than voting and letters to leaders? Opinions freely expressed publically do no good at all?
Because it connects with [queue sinister sound effect] Mexico. That's all it takes.
Heh. Yah, I know... but there's *already* roads that do that. Another one is just... well... another road.
Don't flatter yourself. This entire thread is about avoiding the issue . . . , i.e., Jerome Corsi pointing at the Sun, arguing it revolves around the Earth, and when ridiculed for it, pointing at it again and shouting, "look, the Sun exists!"
However, with the Law of Unintended Consequences in play, were they expected to know that shippers would look elsewhere to off-load cargo? They're not very bright. Why else do they vote Dem?
I can best respond about the longshoremen using your own words:
"They're not very bright. Why else do they vote Dem?"
They're more than just a wee bit blinkered and biased and peculiar....I'll give you that. LOL
I hope that you and yours had a wonderful Christmas! :-)
It appears so.
Canada runs an effective guest worker program. Companies register with a central jobs department, which advertises to Canadians. If there are no takers, the company can hire guest workers. The jobs must have an end date, and the company pre-purchases the airline tickets to send the people home.
If the guest worker does not end up on that plane, the company will be fined.
It's hard to round up all the illegals here already, some we don't know where they are, others are in fact doing jobs we rather like them to continue.
Once you have an effective guest worker program running, companies get a chance to make their illegal workers legal and temporary, and we can enjoy the benefits Canada has now.
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.