Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology.
Yet globalism has a consequence that is, if we are to believe the rhetoric of its greatest proponents, entirely unintended. Globalists often label those of us who resist their schemes as “isolationist.” Yet it is, somewhat remarkably, the globalists themselves who promote policies that isolate our nation from the rest of the world.
In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality.
In their hopes to remake the world in their image, the globalist elite who run much of America’s policy-making apparatus simply further isolate our country from the rest of the world. By claiming a moral superiority that is so evidently absent when the effects of their policies are witnessed, neo-conservatives have made America seem hypocritical to many abroad.
America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies.
Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal.
Despite the protestations of the neo-conservatives, this UN program is not the only example of personal enrichment that comes to the mind of those who doubt America’s authenticity due to these policies. Does anybody remember Richard Perle’s resignation from the defense policy board?
To reset the debate in a way that reflects reality, it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation. Instead we must stand firm for national sovereignty, constitutional republicanism and international cooperation. We should realize that America’s current isolation is simply a consequence of globalism gone awry.
Tuesday
Monday
WHAT I THINK....BOB MURPHY
Let’s get this out in the open right away: I am not a fan of President Bush, and I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Even so, I believe the typical Republican voter should pay heed to this article, because chances are you’re overlooking some important considerations about presidential candidate Ron Paul. To anticipate my conclusion: You should vote for Ron Paul in your state’s primary, and then vote for the Republican nominee (probably Giuliani) in the general election against the Democratic nominee (probably Clinton).
Let’s face it, the single biggest objection to Ron Paul’s candidacy is simple but blunt: "He can’t win." Nobody wants to vote for a sure loser, and Republicans certainly don’t want to throw away their vote on a purist and thus allow Hillary to win.
But I’m not asking you to write in Ron Paul in the general election. No, I’m just asking this: If you believe that Ron Paul best represents the conservative ideals of limited government and Constitutional rule, then vote for him in your state’s primary. You don’t have to worry about strategic considerations too much. Chances are, Rudy Giuliani will still receive the nomination, despite your vote for Paul.
That’s fine. You can still vote for Giuliani (or whoever the nominee is) in the general election, when all good Republicans join forces to oppose a Clinton or Obama presidency. You have absolutely nothing to lose by my strategy. You’re not "wasting" your vote on a dreamer, because you can still vote for the "serious" candidate in the general election.
My plea is so simple that you think there must be some trick involved. I understand your apprehension; let’s go through this slowly to make sure there’s no skullduggery afoot. Typically, most voters don’t actually vote for the person they think will do the best job, because they’re worried about strategic considerations. For example, a lot of people admitted to me that they loved Harry Browne’s platform when he ran on the Libertarian ticket, but they didn’t want to risk a Democratic victory and so they voted for the lesser of two evils (i.e. the Republican).
You don’t have to worry about this type of thing with Ron Paul. He is running on the Republican ticket. If he were to pull off the unlikely feat of winning enough primaries to secure the Republican nomination, then he wouldn’t draw your vote away from the Republican candidate – he would be the Republican candidate. The purpose of the primaries is for the party to select the candidate to represent it in the general election. So if you, as a registered Republican, think Ron Paul best upholds your principles, then say so in the process designed to elicit your opinion. There will be plenty of time for you and other Republicans to put aside your differences and band together against the common foe, come November 2008.
Again, let me bend over backwards to make sure I’m not losing you. You might be worried about a convoluted scenario where my recommendation could backfire. For example, suppose that Ron Paul Republicans foolishly vote their conscience in the primaries, and as a consequence Romney ends up winning the nomination, even though a majority of Republicans would’ve preferred Rudy if Ron Paul hadn’t been in the race. Then the Mormon loses to Hillary in the general election, while Giuliani at least stood a chance. Curse that spoiler Ron Paul for messing things up!
In fact, I think this type of worry has it exactly backward. I know it seems ridiculous – I too thought it was unrealistic optimism when I first read James Ostrowski’s analysis – but if you think it through, you’ll realize it’s true: Ron Paul is the one Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Put aside your own feelings about the liberal media and its coverage of the war. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Americans are furious with the Republicans over Iraq. The one Republican who can beat Hillary on this issue is Ron Paul. And even though you might have gone through the roof over his comments about us being "over there," at least he’s been consistent – as opposed to some "antiwar" politicians who supported the invasion back when it was popular.
In case you’re not following too closely, here’s another secret: Ron Paul is cool. If you think he’s a nerdy Ross Perot type, you must not have seen him on the Colbert Report. Paul's interviews and appearences are available on YouTube.com. I personally realized that Ron Paul actually had a chance of winning when I saw this amazing moment during an appearance on the Bill Maher show. Move the pointer to 7:00 minutes into this clip and watch. Yes, you saw right. Ben Affleck is dutifully clapping (while looking pensive) because Ron Paul’s candidacy is now "deep" and cool. As a movie star with a camera on him, Affleck felt compelled to clap for Paul’s remarks about foreign policy, just as surely as if some Greenpeace activist had called for planting trees. You’re telling me that if the Republicans pick Ron Paul as their candidate, he might not just make mincemeat of Hillary Clinton in the general election?
If you think Ron Paul is the best candidate based on the merits, then there is absolutely no risk in my recommendation. If you truly believe in the stated Republican ideals of lower taxes, lower spending, and Constitutional governance, then vote for Ron Paul in your state’s primary. Chances are, Giuliani will get the nomination anyway, and then you can vote for him and pray that he beats Hillary.
On the other hand, Ron Paul just might secure the nomination, if you and enough other Republicans actually do what the primaries intend you to do. And in that wonderful scenario, the country could see what a true fiscal conservative can do to turn this country around.
Let’s face it, the single biggest objection to Ron Paul’s candidacy is simple but blunt: "He can’t win." Nobody wants to vote for a sure loser, and Republicans certainly don’t want to throw away their vote on a purist and thus allow Hillary to win.
But I’m not asking you to write in Ron Paul in the general election. No, I’m just asking this: If you believe that Ron Paul best represents the conservative ideals of limited government and Constitutional rule, then vote for him in your state’s primary. You don’t have to worry about strategic considerations too much. Chances are, Rudy Giuliani will still receive the nomination, despite your vote for Paul.
That’s fine. You can still vote for Giuliani (or whoever the nominee is) in the general election, when all good Republicans join forces to oppose a Clinton or Obama presidency. You have absolutely nothing to lose by my strategy. You’re not "wasting" your vote on a dreamer, because you can still vote for the "serious" candidate in the general election.
My plea is so simple that you think there must be some trick involved. I understand your apprehension; let’s go through this slowly to make sure there’s no skullduggery afoot. Typically, most voters don’t actually vote for the person they think will do the best job, because they’re worried about strategic considerations. For example, a lot of people admitted to me that they loved Harry Browne’s platform when he ran on the Libertarian ticket, but they didn’t want to risk a Democratic victory and so they voted for the lesser of two evils (i.e. the Republican).
You don’t have to worry about this type of thing with Ron Paul. He is running on the Republican ticket. If he were to pull off the unlikely feat of winning enough primaries to secure the Republican nomination, then he wouldn’t draw your vote away from the Republican candidate – he would be the Republican candidate. The purpose of the primaries is for the party to select the candidate to represent it in the general election. So if you, as a registered Republican, think Ron Paul best upholds your principles, then say so in the process designed to elicit your opinion. There will be plenty of time for you and other Republicans to put aside your differences and band together against the common foe, come November 2008.
Again, let me bend over backwards to make sure I’m not losing you. You might be worried about a convoluted scenario where my recommendation could backfire. For example, suppose that Ron Paul Republicans foolishly vote their conscience in the primaries, and as a consequence Romney ends up winning the nomination, even though a majority of Republicans would’ve preferred Rudy if Ron Paul hadn’t been in the race. Then the Mormon loses to Hillary in the general election, while Giuliani at least stood a chance. Curse that spoiler Ron Paul for messing things up!
In fact, I think this type of worry has it exactly backward. I know it seems ridiculous – I too thought it was unrealistic optimism when I first read James Ostrowski’s analysis – but if you think it through, you’ll realize it’s true: Ron Paul is the one Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Put aside your own feelings about the liberal media and its coverage of the war. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Americans are furious with the Republicans over Iraq. The one Republican who can beat Hillary on this issue is Ron Paul. And even though you might have gone through the roof over his comments about us being "over there," at least he’s been consistent – as opposed to some "antiwar" politicians who supported the invasion back when it was popular.
In case you’re not following too closely, here’s another secret: Ron Paul is cool. If you think he’s a nerdy Ross Perot type, you must not have seen him on the Colbert Report. Paul's interviews and appearences are available on YouTube.com. I personally realized that Ron Paul actually had a chance of winning when I saw this amazing moment during an appearance on the Bill Maher show. Move the pointer to 7:00 minutes into this clip and watch. Yes, you saw right. Ben Affleck is dutifully clapping (while looking pensive) because Ron Paul’s candidacy is now "deep" and cool. As a movie star with a camera on him, Affleck felt compelled to clap for Paul’s remarks about foreign policy, just as surely as if some Greenpeace activist had called for planting trees. You’re telling me that if the Republicans pick Ron Paul as their candidate, he might not just make mincemeat of Hillary Clinton in the general election?
If you think Ron Paul is the best candidate based on the merits, then there is absolutely no risk in my recommendation. If you truly believe in the stated Republican ideals of lower taxes, lower spending, and Constitutional governance, then vote for Ron Paul in your state’s primary. Chances are, Giuliani will get the nomination anyway, and then you can vote for him and pray that he beats Hillary.
On the other hand, Ron Paul just might secure the nomination, if you and enough other Republicans actually do what the primaries intend you to do. And in that wonderful scenario, the country could see what a true fiscal conservative can do to turn this country around.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK.....TIM BOYLE
Every individual having a natural right to life, liberty, and property, in turn, has a natural right to defend them.
Any law meant to deprive an individual from obtaining the means necessary to defend these rights is an infringement on his liberty and is unjust.
If I wish to own a hand gun, I have that right.
If I wish to own a hunting rifle, I have that right.
If I wish to own an assault rifle — as outrageous as that may sound to you — I have that right and it can not legitimately be taken from me.
Those who wish to deny individuals their natural rights, even when done for apparent humanitarian reasons, are acting as tyrants. The gun control advocates' goal of disarming every individual destroys his/her right to self-defense and, in turn, puts every other one of his/her natural rights in greater danger. Gun control laws are morally wrong, constitutionally illegal, and detrimental to the safety of many peaceful citizens.
As Thomas Paine once asked, —¦If a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to 'bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?" To say one must allow such destruction of one's life, liberty and property, and to not allow for the means to protect such rights, is to say that the individual does not hold these natural rights, and that whoever holds the power shall decide what "rights" will be granted. Such an idea is preposterous.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not grant but acknowledges the individual's natural right to defend him or herself with whatever means he deems necessary. Our founders understood that this right must be protected in order to allow the protection of their other natural rights.
But protection from whom? As Thomas Jefferson explained, it wasn't just from other individuals, but in fact "the strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Our founders understood that government is and always has been the greatest enemy of the people and that any government which disarms their citizenry should never be trusted since it makes it only that much easier to take the rest of their rights. As George Washington once said, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Gun control advocates often argue that we would be safer with more gun laws. The truth is the exact opposite. As Thomas Jefferson explains, "laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Gun control advocates always point out how many gun-related deaths there are per year (11,628 in 2004, says the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control), but what should also be looked at is how much good firearms do. As Dr. Jeremy D. Blanks writes, "The numbers have varied from a low of around 100,000 crimes prevented every year by armed citizens to a high of over six million crimes per year." The accurate number probably falls somewhere in between, but even if it were just the low of 100,000 crimes prevented does that not show that more good comes from gun ownership than bad? And what if it is 6 million crimes prevented? Knowing this, how can you honestly argue for the disarming of peaceful American citizens?
The truth is that you cannot disarm the people without becoming a tyrant.
And you can't disarm the people without making the criminals and the government even more powerful and more of a threat to our individual liberties than they already are. The gun control advocates' intentions matter little if the means is immoral and the end undesirable.
If you care about your natural rights as a human being, if you wish not to be controlled as if a slave to the government, than there is only one candidate to vote for: Congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the last man in Washington that understands the principles of liberty that this country was founded upon and the only politician left who is fighting for your rights as an individual.
Any law meant to deprive an individual from obtaining the means necessary to defend these rights is an infringement on his liberty and is unjust.
If I wish to own a hand gun, I have that right.
If I wish to own a hunting rifle, I have that right.
If I wish to own an assault rifle — as outrageous as that may sound to you — I have that right and it can not legitimately be taken from me.
Those who wish to deny individuals their natural rights, even when done for apparent humanitarian reasons, are acting as tyrants. The gun control advocates' goal of disarming every individual destroys his/her right to self-defense and, in turn, puts every other one of his/her natural rights in greater danger. Gun control laws are morally wrong, constitutionally illegal, and detrimental to the safety of many peaceful citizens.
As Thomas Paine once asked, —¦If a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to 'bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?" To say one must allow such destruction of one's life, liberty and property, and to not allow for the means to protect such rights, is to say that the individual does not hold these natural rights, and that whoever holds the power shall decide what "rights" will be granted. Such an idea is preposterous.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not grant but acknowledges the individual's natural right to defend him or herself with whatever means he deems necessary. Our founders understood that this right must be protected in order to allow the protection of their other natural rights.
But protection from whom? As Thomas Jefferson explained, it wasn't just from other individuals, but in fact "the strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Our founders understood that government is and always has been the greatest enemy of the people and that any government which disarms their citizenry should never be trusted since it makes it only that much easier to take the rest of their rights. As George Washington once said, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Gun control advocates often argue that we would be safer with more gun laws. The truth is the exact opposite. As Thomas Jefferson explains, "laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Gun control advocates always point out how many gun-related deaths there are per year (11,628 in 2004, says the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control), but what should also be looked at is how much good firearms do. As Dr. Jeremy D. Blanks writes, "The numbers have varied from a low of around 100,000 crimes prevented every year by armed citizens to a high of over six million crimes per year." The accurate number probably falls somewhere in between, but even if it were just the low of 100,000 crimes prevented does that not show that more good comes from gun ownership than bad? And what if it is 6 million crimes prevented? Knowing this, how can you honestly argue for the disarming of peaceful American citizens?
The truth is that you cannot disarm the people without becoming a tyrant.
And you can't disarm the people without making the criminals and the government even more powerful and more of a threat to our individual liberties than they already are. The gun control advocates' intentions matter little if the means is immoral and the end undesirable.
If you care about your natural rights as a human being, if you wish not to be controlled as if a slave to the government, than there is only one candidate to vote for: Congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the last man in Washington that understands the principles of liberty that this country was founded upon and the only politician left who is fighting for your rights as an individual.
Tuesday
GLOBALISM
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
