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.

[Designer]

"So why didn't Jefferson and Adams guys dooooo anything about it?"

They were going to leave it up to us to take care of it.

In A.D. 2000, or so.

[Paperdoll]

I cannot answer for Ron Paul. I believe he was against our invasion of Iraq. But since we are there, I believe our troops want to complete their mission.

If you look into the record, hear the speeches, and read the articles on Rep. Duncan Hunter, I believe you would have no question in your mind as to how he would govern the country. Log onto his website for a sample: http://www.gohunter08.com Or type his name into search and you will come up with a myriad of Hunter threads.

I like Ron Paul in many ways, but I think we need a dynamic man with military experience to see us through the coming years with the growing threat of Iran, Korea, and now once again, Russia. Not to mention China.

[George W. Bush]

I need to look at Fred Thompson’s Senate votes, but I have my doubts.

Although you know I am a big Friend Of Ron, I do, along with others, look at the rest of the field because all of them, except maybe one, are going to lose the race to be president in 2009. And RP admits he's still a long shot but he is running to win and is doing so much better than he or anyone ever expected. So on a good day, I'm certain we will inaugurate President Paul. Other days, like Ron himself, I recognize how hard it is to thread that needle for anyone. And especially for the Republican nominee in 2008.

Having said that, I've noticed with Fred Thompson that he's made some remarks on the shamnesty and on other matters that indicates a fundamental philosophy that is pretty old-fashioned, that reflects his coming of age in a conservative Southern town in the Fifties and early Sixties. And FDT thinks for himself and has a far greater respect for the voters than those weirdos in the Senate that praise Ted Kennedy at every turn. That includes Bush himself. I'm saying FDT seems to indicate far more conservative fundamental instincts in his life and in office than the others. And, like Ron Paul, he understands being a public servant and his obligation to largely serve and represent the people, not just thumb his nose at them once they were dumb enough to vote for him.

So Fred is very much worth watching. Even for a Friend Of Ron like me. In the end, we should try to support the candidates of our party if at all possible and not just look for some reason to go third-party or just not vote. We need to operate in good faith with others so our party can win. Of course, cooperating to the extent of electing leftwing mayors is asking way too much.

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

A classic RP weekly message ping.

[Optimist]

>>>>To some extent we are. We are giving them 15 Billion on cash to fight AIDS.

Political Correct B*11$h1+ — hardly to be compared to national security foreign policy issues.

>>>>Also, we now have African Command (AFRICOM) which will fight terrorism there, but more so try to limit China’s influence.

THAT is a national security issue — and undoubtedly RonPaulettes would have a problem with us being involved. But we are not “Nation Building” in the same sense that we are in the ME. Different solutions for different porblems — hopefully, same results for same threats.

[Designer]

Frankly, I’ve had it with globalist presidents. We certainly do not need another one.

Sorry, you'll get one whether you like it or not.

Rhombus, meaning what, exactly?

Do you meant the fix is in for globalists? If so, I agree, even though we all keep hoping otherwise.

In case anyone here misses the subtle differences between candidates, IMO Ron Paul is the only one who might be able to stem the tide of globalism in federal government.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“The well known goal of globalism is one world government. No borders, no sovereignty, multi-culturalism, and no middle class, all to secure the position of the elite for all time.

That’s about as well as I can define globalism.”

In my 53 years, I have come to a few conclusions about the elitists, both in and out of politics:

When an individual or group has a great deal of money, what they crave is POWER, as they already have all the money they will ever need.

Look at Edwards
Look at the Bush’s
Look at Soros
Look at Romney
Look at Hillary. all have money.....all are power hungry....all think they can
“run” the world.

Also, look at multi national corporations like IBM and Hewlett Packard. It’s all about the POWER. Of course, if you can destroy the middle class, you will have more money
along with the power.

Look for a Presidential candidate who craves patriotism over power, and you may have someone worthy of our vote.
Reagan never cared about the power, he cared about and loved America. The only candidates who come close today are Hunter and Thompson. Neither crave power, they care about our country.

[Paperdoll]

Good observations, all.

[dforest]

You know what? I totally agree that Duncan Hunter is the best candidate all around.

[George W. Bush]

Oh he’s right on a lot of issues near and dear to me. It’s where he’s wrong that’ll get you killed.

Maybe you should make a nice graphic or slogan: "Vote Ron if you want to die", "A vote for Ron is a vote for suicide", "Ron Paul, the Suicide Candidate"...

LOL.

[rhombus]

There’s some things that are black and white BUT there are also many, many things that are gray... in my world anyway.

[rhombus]

Do you meant the fix is in for globalists? If so, I agree, even though we all keep hoping otherwise. In case anyone here misses the subtle differences between candidates, IMO Ron Paul is the only one who might be able to stem the tide of globalism in federal government.

No there's no conspiracy "fix" involved. It's just a matter of reading the very obvious tea leaves and looking at 8th grade history. We'll get a Democrat or a Republican. If people on this thread believe everyone out there is a globalist except Ron Paul then you'll get a globalist. Hey if Ron Paul is elected, I'll concede I was wrong just before I buy lots of guns and gasoline and retreat to a mountaintop and wait for the $hit to hit the fan.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“You know what? I totally agree that Duncan Hunter is the best candidate all around.”

Wanna know who the globalists and the MSM REALLY fear??

Duncan Hunter, who is anathema to everything they believe in:

Multiculturalism
Open borders
Giving up our language, culture and sovereignty.

[Paperdoll]

We do need to have a friend in the ME for strategic purposes. Either for oil to keep our economy on an even keel, or for military bases for defense against any threat issued from that part of the world.

Right now Israel is about our only ally there, and we are doing her no good by encouraging her to give up more territory to the Palestinians. Duncan Hunter says Israel should not give up one square inch of land, and I agree with him.

[rhombus]

"So why didn't Jefferson and Adams guys dooooo anything about it?"

They were going to leave it up to us to take care of it. In A.D. 2000, or so.

Well it looks like we are going to leave it up to our kids to do in 2050 or so. Keep paying tribute because it's just toooo hard for us and it's all Bush's fault for screwing it up...whah, whah, whah...

[new cruelty]

All these replys are sooooo scripted.

Pot... meet kettle. Kettle... pot.

[Paperdoll]

>Wanna know who the globalists and the MSM REALLY feat??
Duncan Hunter, who is anathema to everything they believe in.<

Yes, You are right. That is exactly why the MSM gives the man who is actively doing more for the benefit of the country (than any other candidate on either side) practically no publicity. Thank you for pointing out the important differences between the globalists and Rep. Duncan Hunter.

[rhombus]

As for me, I stand with Frost: "Good fences make good neighbors."

Agreed. As for me, I don't believe in waiting for them to come over the fence or think we should cower behind our fence. Unfortunately this sometimes means a strategy of search and destroy which often seems like swatting flies. However we do constrain ourselves from using all the weapons we have and have hopes that others will wipe their own noses. That too is a product of our modern society which you rightly identified as wanting to be loved. I'd also add lots of guilt and hating to see bad things on television to a product of our modern society.

[BlackbirdSST]

You’ve got my vote Dr. Paul. Blackbird.

[dforest]

After today, in which I have found answers to the many questions I have had on various threads, I have decided that I support Hunter.

We need a good coservative, no globalist candidate who also sees our threats in the word as we know it now.

He is the person we need at this time.

See, even changed my tagline. I have not supported anyone until today.