Posted on 07/19/2007 8:52:30 AM PDT by 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.
I don’t remember seeing “gun powder” mentioned in the constitution.
You are incorrect, sir. Paul is not an isolationist. The United States’ presence abroad is more than just its military.
It is scary how many conservatives strongly identify with the federal government. You remember the government that ruins people’s lives? Yeah, same entity.
Yessssss, they must never have the preciousss !!
If Chinese troops invaded Mexico and Canada, wouldn't you support obtaining the most powerful and deadly weapons to defend our home?
Invasion and bullying only incentivizes the spread of nuclear technology.
Arms control, like gun control, is a misguided and lost cause.
A big DUHHHHHHHHHH
That means Ron Paul was opposed to the war in Iraq.
He was in fact right about the absence of al Qaida in Iraq.
Out effenstanding!!!
Of course no one claimed al Qaida was present in Iraq, or claimed their presence as a reason to invade, but no matter.
He was correct about the lack of WMDs. IMO Powell is correct that they would have been there in spades had we not invaded an sanctions lifted.
But no matter.
Ron opposed the war, perhaps history will prove hiim right, but that's a simple fact.
I’m really tired of posters like you.
Just for posting that you're a moron.
Opposing the war is nothing to be ashamed of.
Even William F. Buckley, Jr. reconsidered and said he would've opposed our invasion of Iraq. It is only the kool-aid drinkers who insist on denying reality.
No, it's not. So why not acknowledge it.
But explanations of honest opposition at the time don't need to be hedged with but this or because of that or I supported it, but, or first or before I didn't. Causes confusion with the dems
If you had intelligence *maybe* you’re ridiculous remark would bother me. But, you already proved you lack that.
I’ll bump to that, old bean. ;-)
Oh he’s right on a lot of issues near and dear to me. It’s where he’s wrong that’ll get you killed.
Well said. That is the most succinct and correct description I have yet seen of the fatal flaw in Ron Paul's view of reality.
Thank you.
You are more likely to die in a car accident or heart attack than a terrorist attack.
I am not afraid. Why are you?
“Man, we got no Reagan, but we have a lot of neocons who tell everybody to shut up if you threaten to stray from the planatation.”
Spot on with that comment BUMP. Some of us actually support Paul even though we might disagree with some of his reasoning on the WOT because we trust him to 1) declare wars 2) actually FIGHT the wars he declares and 3) run the WH like the Constitution comes before the U.N. Charter and the global kleptocrats donating to the RNC.
That’s why conservatism benefits from genuine debates that include Ron Paul.
Rep. Ron Paul: Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
While I support the ideal of a nation-state allowed by the Treat of Westphalia, the simple fact is that we have overthrown hostile regimes and should when they pose a threat.
We are not talking about Protestant - Catholic wars in Germany anymore but global Jihad.
Get real. Iran is a Islamist terrorist regime, which has called for the destruction of the US and has been waging a proxy war against us.
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.