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?