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 think globalism is all that hard to define or understand.
It's a notion that attempts to describe and quantify the degree of interconnectivity between nations---the interconnectivity of each nation's economies, cultures, political structures, languages, infrastructures, laws and legal traditions, etc., and the degree to which one nation bears responsibility (or does not bear responsibility) for other nations. A globalist, for example, would champion this interconnectivity, and work towards institutions and structure to strengthen it, while an anti-globalist would not champion this interconnectivity (or champion it to a lesser degree), and would not work towards institutions and structure to strengthen it.
I'd argue that more or less, it's the notion of "are you your brother's keeper?" on a global scale.
What would an appropriate response be in your opinion?
I never argued that the Barbary Wars were the same as the War on Terror. However here's a nice link. I think you'll see that there were some similarities as well as some differences. It was interesting to me how Jefferson, the non-globalist tried to work with "the world community" first before "going it on his own".
“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, just like Ron Paul.”
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.
Where Paul is concerned, I'd say no short piece of writing can counter the fact he's an isolationist loon with no more chance of garnering the nomination than you or I.
So a "notion" such as free trade is non-globalist if it is for your own benefit but globalist if it benefits both parties? ;-)
I'd be willing to bet you'd see Ron Paul hanging from a rope in less than 4 years...not that any Congress would ever let him do the things he says he'd do. Like I said, Ron Paul lays out some nice directions but as the head of the executive branch and CINC? I don't think he's up to the task.
Thomas Jefferson: "Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!"
John Quincy Adams, 1829: "The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".
The Koran demands perpetual war against all who deny Mahomet as the prophet of God - John Quincy Adams
Only by force can Muhammad's false doctrines be dispelled and his power annihilated - John Quincy Adams
Muhammad's doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spritual - John Quincy Adams
While the merciless dogmas of Muhammad remain there can never be peace upon earth - John Quincy Adams
Treachery and violence are taught as principles of Mohamet's religion - John Quincy Adams
Open proclamation of hatred is the foundation of a Mahometen's discourse - John Quincy Adams
The sword of extermination is instinct with the spirit of the Koran - John Quincy Adams
>The reason most voted for the amnesty bill was to get a political advantage with Hispanics. Again, it had nothing to do with globalism.<
Why do you think they wanted political advantage? If this bill had passed and was signed into law, there would emerge a one party political system, and the DINOcraps, (Socialists, to be polite), would be in total control. Do you really think a conservative patriot could ever again be elected?
The goal of these people is one world government, no sovereignty for any country, the ultimate purpose of globalism. So the amnesty bill had EVERYTHING to do with globalism.
Frankly, I’ve had it with globalist presidents. We certainly do not need another one.
So why didn't Jefferson and Adams guys dooooo anything about it? ;-)
Sorry, you'll get one whether you like it or not.
More of Ron Paul’s John Birch Society nonsense.
You said that twice, so why don’t you do what you say? Ignore it and go away?
I’m not ging to waste my time on this thread... It bears ignoring.
I take it it's not typical of you to immediately fail at something. For example, telling yourself a thread bears ignoring only to not ignore the thread and make a post to it. How's that succeeding at failure thing working out for you?
What am I thinking?! You're ignoring this thread so you'll never read this.
That said... here's a fifth bump to the thread from your post. Thanks.
BTW, all the candidates suck. Your guy is always gong to be the lesser of evils. Least wise that's what every person thinks about their favorite candidate.
People fooled into believing the ends justify the means. But what are the ends when the means -- voting for the lesser of evils -- leads to an evil end?
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. The ends don't justify the means. (Think about those two sentences together -- they can't be reconciled.) The ends justify the means only when the ends are intended to be evil. But somehow I don't think voters intend an evil end to come from their vote. Voters' collective delusion.
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 and add those costs to the bill. Pump into our tankers as much Iraqi oil as necessary to pay the bills. Sell to our oil companies at a fair market price for our domestic consumption. When finished, give the oil fields to the Kurds who are our only allies among Iraqis with a supply of well-guarded and poised missiles aided by the Navy's boomers to keep the Islamofascisti honest and suppressed. If Iran wants to get into the act, we can pump their oil into our tankers too.
Now that's funny right there. Of course Vietnam became completely communist and after hostilities have ended through trade of ideas and products, Vietnam has become one of the most capitalist acting nations in the region
So no the only thing that would have happened if 'we' hadn't stood up in Korea and Vietnam is that perhaps the change towards capitalism would most likely have happened faster than it did in Vietnam. As neither nation never represented a threat to our nation.
Sorry, you'll get one whether you like it or not.
When we become too dependent on a trading partner that does not share our fundamental beliefs in human liberty, we must be doubly careful to ensure that we do not let profit motives reshape our fundamental culture as defined by the Constitution. Americans are not assets of global corporations first, citizens second.
Maybe some view the WOT as a reponse to 9/11.
I do not. I view 9/11 as the straw that broke the camel’s back. The wake-up call that made it impossible for Americans to ignore the threat any longer.
The problem with Ron Paul’s approach to foreign threats is that we would have to maintain a defense against a growing threat. He would have us ignore threats as they grow until they were obvious, severe, and immediate. Waiting that long in a world made small by cheap transportation is a recipe for disaster. This is a case where a good defense requires a good offense, and pre-emption is cheaper and safer for the homeland than waiting for the inevitable attacks to come to us.
That sounds nice. In practice it's hard to accomplish. but wait, I thought we didn't care about bringing democracy to the world? I thought it was none of our business. I imagine the founding fathers had a real hard time in their day finding people to trade with. Of course they found a way to swallow their pride and trade with the French, the Brits and the Spaniards none the less.
No, we care about the world bringing anti-democaracy to us.
Sounds like that’s okay with you.
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.