Globalism [Ron Paul]

House.Gov ^ | 16 July 2007 | Ron Paul

[BGHater]

The recent defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate came after outraged Americans made it clear to the political elite that they would not tolerate this legislation, which would further erode our national sovereignty. Similarly, polls increasingly show the unpopularity of the Iraq war, as well as of the Congress that seems incapable of ending it.

Because some people who vocally oppose amnesty are supportive of the war, the ideological connection between support of the war and amnesty is often masked. If there is a single word explaining the reasons why we continue to fight unpopular wars and see legislation like the amnesty bill nearly become law, that word is “globalism.”

The international elite, including many in the political and economic leadership of this country, believe our constitutional republic is antiquated and the loyalty Americans have for our form of government is like a superstition, needing to be done away with. When it benefits elites, they pay lip service to the American way, even while undermining it.

We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” -- the underlying principle is globalism.

Although different rhetoric is used in each instance, the basic underlying notion behind replacing regimes abroad and allowing foreign people to come to this country illegally is best understood by comprehending this ideal of the globalist elite. In one of his most lucid moments President Bush spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Unfortunately, that bigotry is one of the core tenets at the heart of the globalist ideology.

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.

Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life.

The defeat of the amnesty bill proves though that there is no infallible logic, or predetermined march of history, that forces globalism on us.

[BlackbirdSST]

In the end he's still a nut.

Step away from the mirror when you say that. Blackbird.

[Optimist]

Hear hear

[dforest]

word=world, never professed to type well. Sorry!

[George W. Bush]

Not a nickel to the Palestinians. Not a nickel for "nation building." Give the Iraqis the $450 billion bill for the war, add the cost of using the Marines and Air Force as a collection agency, slaughter every last Islamofascist SOB

I'm glad to see we're at least getting somewhat closer on foreign policy objectives and methods. You left out the part where Israel gets to usual nuclear weapons if her neighbors even make her nervous. Or merely annoyed. LOL.

[Grunthor]

“Maybe you should make a nice graphic or slogan: “Vote Ron if you want to die”, “A vote for Ron is a vote for suicide”, “Ron Paul, the Suicide Candidate”...

LOL.”

In an age where a nuke can be handed off to a terrorist organization and our borders are wide open it is simply not feasible nor is it safe to elect someone that believes that it is a good idea to WAIT for an American city to go up in a mushroom cloud rather than acting to prevent it.

Or is is the preferable Libertarian thing to do for individual American citizens to protect themselves from terrorist attack and just leave the government out of it altogether?

[Paperdoll]

>There’s some things that are black and white BUT there are also many, many things that are gray...in my world anyway.<

Particularly today for some reason. Too many grotesque threads on FR. The awful things people do to each other! Today can definitely be called gray.

But philosophically, gray can also denote compromising a principle. Gray can depict a bleak outlook. Gray can mean limbo rather than direction

In order to wipe out the gray in our lives, we must cling to the white, and recognize the black for what it is. To be satisfied with gray is to remain forever mediocre.

So cheer up. Do something nice for yourself or for someone else. :)

[stephenjohnbanker]

Hunter needs a right wing version of Soros!

[BlackbirdSST]

No. But anyone who holds court with Alex Jones and engenders the support of flakes and/or nuts like the “truthers” is not to be trusted.

Is that as bad, worse or better than "holding court" with LaRaza? Blackbird.

[Puddleglum]

You know what? I totally agree that Duncan Hunter is the best candidate all around.

I might agree if he hadn't voted for all of Bush's big ticket spending bills. That to me is a major red flag about someone who, from his rhetoric, I want to like. It makes me think the rhetoric about current hot button events is "running interference" to keep eyes off his past budgetary voting.

[Paperdoll]

>After today, in which I have found answers to the many questions I have had on various threads, I have decided that I support Hunter.<

That is good news, indylindy! Duncan Hunter is fortunate to have your support. Thank you and welcome to the team!

[dforest]

Huh? unlike Soros, a traitor, you mean a true patriot with tons of money that cares about the preservation of US citizens and their culture and security?

I hope that person steps up soon. I would, but my finances aren’t quite in that range! LOL!

[B4Ranch]

Looking over your recent posts, you seem to be taking quite a bit of notice of these RP threads for someone who thinks they aren’t worth your time. Why bother posting on them? What’s up?

[Designer]

"Hunter the right needs a right wing version of Soros!"

[pfony1]

I saddened that you find it so difficult to understand the rather obvious and common-sense conclusion that “bad” is better than “worse”.

I gather that most people will be able to decide which lever to pull if the two choices for President turn out to be “John Edwards” and “Mitt Romney”. They will know which of those candidiates will appoint the conservative judges America needs to prune back our creeping government, whose growth has been ENABLED by liberal judges and which candidate will appoint more Constitution-ignoring liberal judges.

Of course, you are free to insist on a “third choice”, a vote for “none-of-the-above”. And you are free to snarl from the sidelines about your “moral superiority” while you do NOTHING productive.

But such “holier-than-thou” posturing strikes me as naive, selfish and vain.

Saaaaayy.....?

Are you really Ron Paul, the “vanity” candidate?

[RightWhale]

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them.

Nobody is going to buy that idea, but that foreigners are not managing well enough to support our system of commerce and therefore need to be managed so they can both host our corporations and not send terrorists to blow up stuff is possible.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Huh? unlike Soros, a traitor, you mean a true patriot with tons of money that cares about the preservation of US citizens and their culture and security?”

Y E S

and I don’t qualify either : )

[B4Ranch]

LOL

[BlackbirdSST]

Well said Scarlet! Blackbird.

[George W. Bush]

My question about Ron Paul is "Does he see that we have been attacked by terrorists, terrorists are in Iraq"?

Attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and before that, led by Bin Laden who declared a written fatwa against the Great Satan (that would be us) in 1997 for, among other things, our troop presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia (that place they grovel to five times a day and I guess they don't like thinking about Jews or indecently clad women or any infidel standing on that patch of godforsaken desert while they're groveling).

Did he support going to Iraq in the first place, before we stayed to nation build?

He voted to authorize the president to pursue Bin Laden into Afghanistan (more a collection of medieval fiefdoms under warlords than an actual country) and has indicated support for pursuit into tribal areas of Pakistan (where he thinks Bin Laden and al-Q still are). And he still supports that and believes that Pakistan, our supposed ally, is actually harboring Bin Laden. I agree with him on that. It is almost certainly where Bin Laden is if he's still alive.

He opposed invading Iraq because there was and is no evidence of al-Qaeda operational presence there. Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do. Just as the Turkish army does to protect their secular "democracy".

Since no WMD were ever found nor any evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, Ron Paul voted against invasion. He believes that if Congress had actually been forced into taking responsibility to declare war formally as the Constitution prescribes, that we would have drawn back from it. And that is why Bush didn't ask for a declaration: he knew the evidence was far too weak. And that course, avoiding the Iraqi invasion, would have been far sounder, given the results in Iraq which could make the region even more dangerous for us. That is not the case with the Afghans whose excesses and barbarism repelled even other Muslims.

My problem with Paul is that I am not sure if and what he would consider to be an attack and a reason to fight back.

He spoke to this the other day. Given sound evidence of imminent attack, he believes the president is authorized and duty-bound to respond. Without any input from Congress. And of course, without running to the United Nations for permission first.

One of the more disturbing things about invading Iraq was that we didn't have a declaration of war from Congress, as the Constitution prescribes when dealing with sovereign nations, but we crawled on hands and knees to get the U.N.'s permission. It was a gross affront to any patriot and to anyone who believes that our Constitution, the basis of our law and our country, is our ultimate authority. I mention the shameful squirming we did before the criminally corrupt and incompetent United Nations because the topic of the thread is, after all, globalism. It's shameful to even recall that sad incident in our history, that we should grovel to the likes of the U.N. which Ron Paul has tried to defund repeatedly over the years. That would, of course, destroy the U.N. entirely.

[cowtowney]

“I’m not going to waste my time on this thread. Too much Ron Paul junk on Free Republic right now. It bears ignoring.”

This is your second entry on this thread telling us that you don’t want to waste your time on a Ron Paul thread and that it should be ignored. You’re not good at taking your own advice.