Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Globalism [Ron Paul]
House.Gov ^ | 16 July 2007 | Ron Paul

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; boo; elections; freedom; globalism; kook; nau; nuts; paranoid; patriot; realconservative; ronpaul; ronpaul911truther; thevoicesinronshead
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-314 last
To: CFA_Ghost93

bump. Nice post.


301 posted on 07/21/2007 4:53:30 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Designer
Plenty. Since Robert Welch's death, they have apparently gone backwards to the "Fortress Amrica" foolishness that would not have avoided either 12/7/41 or 9/11/01. If it's all the same to you, I would rather that the explosions and bombings and military attacks occur on Islamofascist turf and kill their people rather than killing hours.

The Birchers were reasonably read out of the conservative movement by Bill Buckley even when Mr. Welch was in his prime. When I met Mr. Welch at his Belmont HQ in the company of Scott Stanley in 1972, he seemed to me to be a very nice old gentleman who, while eccentric in his politics, would have made a wonderful neighbor. One cannot say the same for SOME of the Birchers out there in the boonies who were eccentric to an exquisite degree and utterly useless politically except as targets for the left if they were noticed at all. BTW, I have no problem regarding Eisenhower as Mr. Welch did in his Black Book.

302 posted on 07/21/2007 11:07:35 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: cinives

You forgot about the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones and conspiracies sooooo secret that we do not even know their names. Take a stimulant for your memory and then a few tranquilizers and calm down. Check first under your bed, though. You can NEVER be toooooo sure!


303 posted on 07/21/2007 11:10:07 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Like all politicians are as pure as the driven snow ... none of them would want pure, naked power, now would they ?

You go ahead and trust your and your descendents futures to your international elitist masters. I’d prefer to trust in the Constitution and the government that enforces all being equal under the law.


304 posted on 07/21/2007 5:03:02 PM PDT by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: cinives
Good thing you aren't an unborn child.

SCOTUS has illicitly assumed the status of a perpetual constitutional convention without need of 3/4 of the states ratifying its decisions distorting the constitution.

Franklin, asked by an old lady on the Philadelphia streets what sort of government the FF were creating, said: "A republic, madame, if you can keep it." That suggests that he well expected what was to come.

The constitution was a noble experiment in binding flesh and blood politicians with shackles of words. It has not worked as well as hoped. We retain some but by no means all of what was provided by the FF and, as fallen men, we have reverted in other respects to the unwritten constitution (politicians' self interest trumping much that is deemed "inconvenient" in the words of the FF).

The rule of law is a largely dead issue when it clashes with the will of officeholders. It began dying when CJ John Marshall decided that SCOTUS had the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

It continued dying when Abraham Lincoln, aided and abetted by other radicals and by Generals like Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan illicitly attacked and invaded states that had chosen to leave the Union as was clearly their Tenth Amendment right.

It continued dying when, after the Confederacy and its people were assaulted, raped, murdered and pillaged on the blatantly nonsensical pretense that a state that had joined the Union could not leave, those same eleven states were then "required" to ratify Amendments 13, 14 and 15 as a "condition" of their "re-admission" to the Union and looted for another eleven years under military "reconstruction."

Need I detail the rise of the largely (entirely?) unconstitutional welfare state which seems to have the aura of permanence about it if we depend upon either elections or SCOTUS to smell the coffee? Or many other unconstitutional depredations?

So, forgive me if I am skeptical of the constitutional sacred virginity theorizing and philosophizing of paleoPaulie and his friends and their having a nervous breakdown over our fighting necessary wars with Congressional authorizations of force without being fussy enough and dainty enough to had the specific words "Declaration of War" in headlines at the top of the resolution, apparently because the UN Charter (which we idiotically signed off on so many years ago and ought to abrogate immediately if not sooner) purports to outlaw war. PaleoPaulie and the moonbats are ignoring 220 years of American history as well as the Supremacy clause of Article VI.

While you are preening as a "constitutionalist", you might want to review the history of its ratification. Speaking of elites, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and their Federalist cronies were very upset that the Articles of Confederation did not grant the nation's social and financial elite all the power they craved to order the economy to their interest and liking.

Under the pretense of wanting to devise rules for the navigation of the Potomac River, they held two conferences (at Annapolis and at Mount Vernon) at which they actually plotted the demise of the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution which would give them, for example, the power to levy taxes rather than request money from the states.

The constitutional convention was called and the constitution drafted. However, the convention had no power to do anything but propose changes to the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, any change whether in the nature of an amendment or by replacing the Articles with a new constitution REQUIRED the UNANIMOUS approval of the states. Such approval was quite unlikely and the FF decided to provide that ratification by nine states would make the constitution the new governing document for them. When the ninth state had ratified the new and illegal constitution, the Articles of Confederation were dead as a practical matter. Soon enough thereafter, federal troops were suppressing Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and a Federalist Congress was busily passing sin taxes (on such as whiskey) to make the modest folk pay the bills run up by the elites.

Fortunately for the Republic, the Federalists overplayed their elitist hand and were eliminated from the White House and from control of Congress, both permanently, in reasonably short order. Unfortunately, Jon Marshall was left behind by vengeful elites as SCOTUS Chief Justice to invent centralized power theories undreamed of by the FF such as the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

I despise such elitists at least as much as the next guy but I do not kid myself that paleoPaulie has a clue or would defend anything, much less our country, with any talent whatsoever. The man is an eccentric loon. Nor do I think the United States is waiting to be delivered from its burdens by the John Birch Society, by libertoonians generally, or by Objectivists in particular and we are certainly not so naive as to pine for an eager Al Qaeda apologist like paleoPaulie to run our foreign policy or command our troops.

I live in the real world.

Sorry about you.

305 posted on 07/22/2007 10:58:39 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: CFA_Ghost93; Allegra
CFAetc.: Ahhhh, you're madder than hell and you're not going to take it any more!!!! Has a familiar ring to it. Maybe you can get a job as a "screaming prophet" on some struggling TV network.

The French Revolution, Robespierre, the guillotine and the Directory were good examples of gummint by temper tantrum and why such sorts of gummint are not considered yummy in actually conservative circles.

306 posted on 07/22/2007 11:05:16 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

You can reserve the right to call the moon a ball of limberger cheese but it will not make it a ball of limberger cheese.


307 posted on 07/22/2007 11:15:32 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: CFA_Ghost93; BlackElk; Petronski
Hello? Is there anyone on this board that thinks things aren’t bad right now- RIGHT HERE IN THIS COUNTRY? I am talking about the USA.

Well, hell...I don't know. I'm in Iraq.

Y'know, more people are killed by shootings in DC than in Baghdad.

I say we withdraw from DC. It's hopeless. Let's throw in the towel.

And I'd like a timetable, please.

308 posted on 07/22/2007 11:30:35 AM PDT by Allegra (26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Aw, g’wan. I was just having some fun. Friends Of Ron are known for an ebullient optimism and good cheer. Try it some time.


309 posted on 07/22/2007 1:08:43 PM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
I say we withdraw from DC. It's hopeless. Let's throw in the towel.

There's hope yet to get you to join the Ron Paul pinglist. LOL.
310 posted on 07/22/2007 1:09:32 PM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: death2tyrants

“Being casual over the provisions of the Constitution or completely ignoring destroys its power as the safeguard of our liberty.“

“These are more fallacious arguements.”

Two words my friend: bovine feces. If you don’t take the constitution seriously then you can’t claim to be a “conservative”. “Neo-conman” maybe but “conservative” no. And yes if the constitution is ignored it becomes disempowered.

Simply yelling “wrong” doesn’t cut it for a rational argument. At least explain your reasoning please. Did you mean instead that the constitution is NOT the safeguard of our liberty?


311 posted on 08/06/2007 6:33:31 AM PDT by Historiocality ("there are few problems which cannot be remedied with the suitable application of high explosives.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Voters are going to have a choice this time around:

1) More of the same

2) Socialism (aka Communism Lite)

3) Ron Paul

-----------------------------------------------

At the risk of being "purged", allow me to say that I personally am taking a closer look at Ron Paul's campaign.

One of my major concerns though is that this next election we will need to elect a leader and not a consensus seeker like George Bush and I have yet seen anyone who fits the bill.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

312 posted on 08/06/2007 7:12:56 AM PDT by expatguy (Support - "An American Expat in Southeast Asia")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #313 Removed by Moderator

To: Historiocality

“Simply yelling “wrong” doesn’t cut it for a rational argument. At least explain your reasoning please. “

Are you responding to the correct post? These arguements don’t relate to my post.


314 posted on 08/06/2007 2:59:40 PM PDT by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-314 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson