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.
Yes. I wasn’t happy when they excluded Alan Keyes (by physical force, in fact) from the debates in years past.
I’m not happy about the exclusion of Paul either.
PaleoPaulie is a UNITED STATES Representative and not supposed to be an Al Qaeda representative. He suffers from role confusion. A pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities can be distinguished from an Iranian promise of genocide against Israel. To make it simple enough for even the "paleos" to understand, destroying Iranian weapons-making facilities under current circumstnces is quite justified as a way of PREVENTING genocide and genocide is NOT justified by its aim of exterminating Jews whom the Iranian mullahs hate for being Jews. If that looks like hypocrisy, go into therapy.
We possess and Israel possesses atomic weapons. Iran does not yet. Iran threatens genocide against the Jews if and when it does possess nuclear weapons. If it looks like hypocrisy to you that we and Israel have such weapons and insist that the genocidal mullahs do not, again you might profitably consider therapy because your logic mechanism (if any) is broken.
One more reason for us to be relieved that neither paleoPaulie nor you nor any of your ilk will be nominated by the GOP next year.
BTW, I am all for the rest of the world having to worry about what we might do next. I care less what the world thinks of us. May we never need to care what the world thinks of us. We are a nation and not a popularity contestant (Miss Whirled Peas 2007???). As Machiavelli observed, if you have to choose, it is better to be feared than to be loved.
In case you are making the usual windtunnel "moral equivalency" argument of the antiwar antiAmerican leftists and paleowhatevers, there is NO moral equivalency between Red China and us. "Unfair" is the favorite substitute for argument of four-year-olds.
I notice that Saddam lacked atomic weapons in 1991 and 2001 because the Israelis destroyed by air strike his nuclear facilities in the 1980s. That worked. Domestic gun control does not work because wehave a constitution that prohibits it and about 200 million guns in private hands for which we may thank God and the 2nd Amendment.
Even if paleoPaulie were to be elected and eagerly get right down on his knees to surrender the country to its Islamofascist enemies and his Islamofascist buddies during his Inaugural Address, Muhammed el Kaboomski would have to take an armed America, state by state, county by county, town by town, block by block, house by house and room by room and, if he tries, he will find out what armed resistance is REALLY all about. Meanwhile every Islamic city and shrine would be incinerated by the US Navy boomers.
Who let the terrorists into this country, and who sent one a visa renewal 6 months AFTER 9/11 ???
Hmmm ???
Our efficient government, that’s who.
No, the attack wasn’t Bush’s fault - but it was enabled by the ineptitude of our government, under Democrat or Republican administration, to control our borders.
I'm not saying it couldn't be successful if implemented over time. I'm saying it ain't gonna happen in 4 years even if magic happened and Ron Paul were actually elected. Such a violent jolt to the economy would be suicidal if implemented immediately and Paul would be hated more than Bush and Clinton combined.
Yep, that’s just so ... sensitive ...
It makes me feel as warm inside as the photo of Bush holding the old Saud king;s hand at Camp David.
Yuck.
There are angry peasants in Paraguay as well. If the world blows, no place will be safe without a private army.
I fear you are correct.
I just don’t trust Thompson at all, and I am not sure about Duncan Hunter. Ron Paul is, if nothing else, consistent and reliable on the Constitution.
That’s just like unsocialism-izing over time. Until you take the last step, you’re still a socialist.
For an interesting treatment of the abrupt versus the incremental strategy pros and cons, you might start with “Atlas Shrugged”. Yes, I know, it’s a novel, but there are a lot of truths concerning human nature there as well, at least one of which is the nature of power. Humans don’t like to give it up.
No, IMO, there needs to be the equivalent of a “surgical strike” to cut all the irrelevancies out of the government. Yes, there would be mass confusion for a while, but in the end you would not have millions of bureaucrats still employed on the taxpayer dime trying to figure out how to reverse incremental “reforms”.
By the way, of course I've read Atlas Shrugged. A great book.
OK what are his first steps in the first 4 years? Were he to get 4 years.
Actually the other candidates said many things during the debates I watched but this thread is about Paul isn’t it? All I did hear Paul say is that he was going to pull out of Iraq because there was no declaration of war so you can at least say that can’t you? Is he going to cut the Defense dept, the CIA, the DOE, the Education Department? Is he going to reduce income taxes? Is he going to stop Federal Highway money to the states? Is he going to build “the wall”? Is he going to end trade with China? Anything? General principles and goals aren’t going to cut it. The Devil is in the details and people want to know the details. Otherwise they’ll just vote for haircuts.
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.