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.

[George W. Bush]

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?

No, that isn't what he said but we'll skip that since you weren't paying attention.

A sketch of what you should expect: defense cuts, yes, but not radical cuts. CIA, probably some but more out of DIA which is the much larger operation. DOE, not likely. Education, abolish. He intends to abolish the IRS. Federal highway money to the states, no, of course not since the Founders maintained two general federal responsibilities for national defense and for highway/bridgebuilding. He will build the "wall", probably in six months. End trade with China, absolutely not since RP is both a free-trader and also a fair-trader but tolerating their currency manipulation and predatory economics, no (not all that different from Duncan on some of that).

BTW, you do know that the president can't actually dictate spending any more than the Senate can. Only the House can spend money. The president can veto and he can negotiate and he is required to present an annual budget (normally disregarded by Congress anyway), mostly so Congress understands the president's priorities and what will likely draw his veto.

You might also see RP do away with a State Of The Union speech. It's certainly not required, more a part of the modern public relations apparatus of the modern national security state. Most presidents in our history haven't engaged in this see-the-emperor-hear-the-emperor exercise in imperial boredom.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I'm not saying it couldn't be successful if implemented over time.

Nothing ever happens in government except "over time." In response to the nightmare scenario you propose, can you imagine the sheer nuclear release of revenue and jobs if the same wasteful inefficient indolent programs were moved into the private sector, along with an explosion of cash that used to be siphoned off for the taxes to support such waste? It would make Reagan's "morning in america" look like a cloudy morning during the winter solstice at the north pole. Economic dislocation was the terror stricken squall of the socialists at the beginning of the Reagan tax cuts. Freedom produces blesing, optimisim, and prosperity. Socialism produces slavery, timid fearfulness, and poverty. I prefer the economic dislocation of buggy whip manufacturers to the thought of government meddling because of 'the price of human misery.' That misery is ameliorated in a free society better than socialism ever could.

[SittinYonder]

If you had intelligence *maybe* you’re ridiculous remark would bother me. But, you already proved you lack that.

If you had any ability to understand what you read, you would have kept your ridiculous remark to yourself. But you already proved you lack that.

[rhombus]

Thanks for your reply...

Yes I know where spending comes from but the White House submits a budget. The biggest thing I saw there that would cause all sorts of pain was the highway money. I don’t argue for it or even it’s legitimacy. I just know that the States depend on it and the Feds have used these moneys to get all sorts of things pushed through reluctant States. There’s a huge number of jobs tied up in those moneys and people who lose those jobs won’t give a twit for your ideology when they can’t pay their mortgages.

Doing away with the state of the union speech is hardly a crucial issue. However, in today’s media obsessed world, it would be foolish. I hated President (as Paul would be) needs every media advantage he can get.

So what will Paul do on Iraq? Why did you skip that and insult me for “not paying attention”? Why not just clear it up? The President does have direct powers in this area. Of course you saw this...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Liberals_Vow_to_Block_Continued_Iraq_Funding.html

[Chuck Dent]

Israel should expel all those Arabs (sometimes called Palistinians) from their ancestral homeland.

Oh, it will happen some day. The only tried & true way to resolve conflict between ancient enemies is physical separation. Whether it's the partition of the subcontinent (India & Pakistan) or the Rhine, it's the solution that works.

Whether it takes 50 years or 500, what will precipitate taking such action will be a WMD attack. During the confusion of strike/counter-strikes, Israel will finally have the opportunity to simultaneously occupy & expel throughout its natural barrier perimeter.

When the dust clears, there won't be anymore arabs within Israel proper extending from S Lebanon, the West Bank & Gaza.

[nicmarlo]

Anyone who thinks that we should preserve private property rights for citizens and reduce the size and scope of the federal government is a fruit cake

And if that's how you think, you're a moron.

If you had any ability to understand what you read, you would have kept your ridiculous remark to yourself. But you already proved you lack that.

Um, no. I stand behind what I said.

[SittinYonder]

Um, no. I stand behind what I said.

You really shouldn't. You're standing behind idiocy.

[nicmarlo]

It makes me feel as warm inside as the photo of Bush holding the old Saud king's hand at Camp David.

Yeah....all warm inside, like that. : )

[nicmarlo]

How long have you had this socialism problem?

[rhombus]

A lovely “I have a dream” scenario.

[SittinYonder]

How long have you had this socialism problem?

How long have you been an idiot?

[nicmarlo]

Still drooling, I see.

[SittinYonder]

Why don't you try going back to my post that you first responded to and re-reading it. You may realize, if you have any skills at comprehension at all whatsoever, that you owe me an apology.

But I doubt you'll come to that realization, and I can already tell you're not man enough to admit when you're wrong and apologize, so I'll just accept your further insults as more evidence of your own foolishness without responding.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

A lovely “I have a dream” scenario

Beats "workers of the world, unite" by a wide margin.

[nicmarlo]

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.

Any member of the CFR is an automatic disqualification for me. That means Fred's out without further thought. The jury's still out on Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul. I agree that Paul is the closest Constitutionalist running...I've got to read more and better understand his foreign policy stance....for one thing...and do more research and reading on Hunter, overall. I like Tancredo, as well, but there are some matters that concern me with him too....time will tell; and that's what the vetting process is all about, or is supposed to be, better understanding the candidates and their positions.

[nicmarlo]

You are correct; I humbly apologize for my error.

[George W. Bush]

Yes I know where spending comes from but the White House submits a budget. The biggest thing I saw there that would cause all sorts of pain was the highway money. I don’t argue for it or even it’s legitimacy. I just know that the States depend on it and the Feds have used these moneys to get all sorts of things pushed through reluctant States. There’s a huge number of jobs tied up in those moneys and people who lose those jobs won’t give a twit for your ideology when they can’t pay their mortgages.

RP would probably support the current interstate system. He would probably not support the ever-expanding federalization of highway systems, some of them which are not even interstate corridors but actually just state highways. And he would probably advocate for increased use of toll roads such as you currently see in Texas and on the east coast. If you won't take this position, then you invite Robert Byrd to use his position to pave over the entire surface of his state with federal money even though those roads mostly are used for people to move out of his loser state. Or to spend $250 million on a Bridge To Nowhere for 50 people on an unimportant island off Alaska. Take your pick. I'd bet that most people will support RP's position. I think RP would let states set their own speed limits too. And he would probably support reduced spending but grant the governors more authority and fewer restrictions on how to spend the block-granted funds. This is just how I read his overall statements and voting record.

Doing away with the state of the union speech is hardly a crucial issue. However, in today’s media obsessed world, it would be foolish. I hated President (as Paul would be) needs every media advantage he can get.

Ron Paul would return the presidency to an office you don't hear from all that much. Daily press briefings at the White House would probably be abolished entirely, maybe a weekly or monthly press conference but with routine written statements on President Paul's policy positions. In essence, the day-to-day business of the country would be conducted by Congress. Oh, and the White House wouldn't be a motel for fundraising. He might even abolish the White House tours and simply return it to being the president's private residence (although some of the historic furnishings and paintings might be placed in a museum for the public to view). Personally, I would prefer such a presidency. In general, Ron Paul would abolish nearly all the trappings of the imperial presidency as we have known it under the national security state implemented since WW II.

One of the reasons why I support these things so much is that it would force us to take our vote for Congress and Senate much more seriously. The role of the president has become so large that it distorts our system of checks and balances and it lets Congress dump too many of its actual responsibilities on the president so they don't have to be responsible for their own actions.

So what will Paul do on Iraq? Why did you skip that and insult me for “not paying attention”? Why not just clear it up? The President does have direct powers in this area. Of course you saw this...

He would withdraw in short order. He probably could be persuaded to leave much of our equipment for the Iraqis to use and might allow a sizable group of police and military trainers (no combatants) to remain to help the Iraqis. They are, at least on paper, a democracy and we should not abandon them. But his patience for their progress would be very short indeed.

And he didn't oppose the war in Iraq because we didn't declare war. He opposed it because Iraq posed no credible threat to us. And he was right.

[Borax Queen]

BTTT

[George W. Bush]

Oh, it will happen some day. The only tried & true way to resolve conflict between ancient enemies is physical separation. Whether it's the partition of the subcontinent (India & Pakistan) or the Rhine, it's the solution that works. ... When the dust clears, there won't be anymore arabs within Israel proper extending from S Lebanon, the West Bank & Gaza.

Then why not now?! Why wait? I don't know why they didn't do in '67 or in '73. Very foolish behavior for such shrewd people.

Nothing Israel could do could possibly make them more hated by the Muslims. Or even the antisemitic Euros. So do it already.

[Smokin' Joe]

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

Some of indeed understand.

I'm a great-grandpa who understands that all these years of voting for "bad" instead of worse have gotten us the same place just one or two "worse' would have. Sad to say, I should have voted for worse when the backlash might have caused a change in direction, instead of sitting in the 'hot tub' with the rest of the frogs getting cooked slowly.

Now, I'm not sure there are enough of us left who understand the abyss between the Constitution and what is practiced to make a difference.