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.
Sounds like WHAT’s OK with me?
PS - yes, deomcracacy is a new word
PPS - It’s a kind of national defense, protecting our rights from other crappy cultures just because they make cheap stuff and don’t have so many pesky civil liberties.
That I’ll get another globalist president whether I want one or not. Sounds like a globalist president is okay with you. Do I misread you?
Trade is never free. Buyer and seller each act in their own self-interest, whether "enlightened" or not. Benefit is simply a vector measurement in one or the other direction.
I’m just being realistic here. The next President will be a Democrat or a Republican. I don’t think being a “globalist” is a digital situation... it’s much more analog, if you take my meaning.
As a Jacksonian Libertarian many of Ron Paul’s positions are the same as mine. However, as a US citizen I have stock in the economic well being of this country, and the world trading system that is dominated by this country, and is responsible for most of our wealth. If we don’t protect the global trading system, the Barbarians will destroy it by making it unsafe, and the US and mankind’s continued advancement will end. The Roman Empire ended when Barbarians made trading unsafe, through piracy, highway men, and sacking of cities. The same thing could happen to the West.
It isn’t a sure thing that mankind will continue to flower under western democracies. It certainly isn’t, if we allow the Barbarians free reign to do as they will. We must learn how to fight them, we can’t do this by taking defensive positions, while the Barbarians destroy air travel, shipping, and global trade. Look at the targets they select for the bombings, The World Trade Towers, Trains, Airplanes, and Markets. They know the West’s strength is trade. And so they attack our center of gravity. Trade and air travel are already being affected with security delays, thereby driving up the cost of doing business.
In conclusion, Ron Paul’s position is short sighted and endangers us and our way of life, while leaving no hope that things might improve if we can just figure out how to win.
Agreed. It’s also easier to trade with people who don’t want to kill you. Maybe I am a globalist. ;-)
Although I’m not a big fan of Old Hickory, what you wrote was damn good.
>I don’t think being a “globalist” is a digital situation.
I think it is just as “digital” as being pro-abortion, or pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. And for the future of the sovereignty of this country, far more “digital”.
Naw, folks can shop where they want. But the key concept (I think) is becoming beholden to other countries for necessities, not luxuries (or plastic crap). Countries go to war when they can no longer eat or run their factories. Sometimes they even go to war when they cannot do one or the other "cheaply."
When your country becomes beholden to protect other countries for the basics, you have in effect made it more difficult to secure your national security, and or you made it a US citizen's responsibility to protect someone who has sworn no loyalty to the Constitution of the USA. the connection between competing products (marketplace) and competing ideologies (Westernism vs say Fundamentalist Islam) comes into focus when one must make "deals with the devil" - folks who hate us - to secure our basic necessities.
You become beholden to them, get all PC, and yes, abridge things like free speech in order not to insult them or, heaven forbid, make them shut off the tap. Or you pat down every old lady in the airport rather than selectively developing a profile of likely criminals. You inconvenience a whole nation of traveller because the House of Saud might get its panties in a bunch.
That's just one of many examples of house the marketplace of stuff and the marketplace of sovereignity become intertwined.
Ron Paul may not be popular for whatever reason but which part of his essay is not true? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots (yet how many people are doing it?) and see that rich elitists want to have unlimited wealth and power and our sovereign nation, with its regulations and rule of the people, limits that. Before too long we may wish there were more Ron Paul’s. It is really obvious, in the bible, that someday the elitists get their wish in establishing a global totalitarian rule which is led by the antichrist.
they did. they created a government that has successfully held those tyrants at bay for several hundred years. technology and greed have finally caught up and threaten to undo it.
I agree with you. Paul does stick to the Constitution.
My question about Ron Paul is "Does he see that we have been attacked by terrorists, terrorists are in Iraq"?
Did he support going to Iraq in the first place, before we stayed to nation build?
My problem with Paul is that I am not sure if and what he would consider to be an attack and a reason to fight back.
He can criticise this war, but I also do not think we can shake hands with Iran and the jihadi's, nor can we ignore them.
Ronald Reagan was the only reason I’d have anything to do with your party in the past. Ron Paul is the only reason I’d have anything to do with your party in the future.
I am well aware that you don’t think you need or want my vote. Think again. I am not alone and I’m not going to be persuaded by the anybody but Hillary nonsense.
Not exactly "bring democracy", but we did unsuccessfully attempt to overthrow the Bey of Algiers and replace his government by one led by his estranged brother. That was the shores of Tripoli thing.
Do I assume from your statement that Paul was in favor of invading Iraq, but was opposed to creation of a stable government. I admit a quick exit leaving the country in the hands of a strongman of our choice was a option.
Well, we trade all the time with people who, in other circumstances, would rather kill us. We always have. Three hundred years ago, for example, New England's most important trading parter was l'Acadie, home of those vile, evil papists that New Englanders would one day "racially cleanse" from l'Acadie so that the New Englanders could re-settle it with good Protestant stock. Not that the Acadians ever threatened the New Englanders militarily, of course---they were, after all, the French neutrals. New Englanders simply coveted what they had, and used the excuse that they were French and Catholic to justify what they did.I think we modern Americans are wrong in thinking that democracy can be exported; that democratic institutions can be grafted upon any and all cultures. That which sustains a democratic form of government is organic; a culture has it, or it doesn't. These feudal, patriarchal cultures, which are far older than ours, are based on a certain alchemy that does not foster or even desire our democratic forms. These cultures know our ways---they just don't want them. They just want our money. Yet Americans are largely tone-deaf to this, because we want others to love us, and we don't understand it when they don't---when they don't understand we're just trying to do good.
As for me, I stand with Frost: "Good fences make good neighbors."
“Yes, Rep. Hunter’s bill to force foreign transport vehicles to abide by the same rules and regulations as domestic transport vehicles is certainly vital to the safety and well being of American drivers and pedestrians. It would also drastically curb drug running and illegal alien smuggling.”
Hunter
B U M P
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.