>> The "globalism means ceding national sovereignty" argument. The modern equivalent of the "federalism tramples states' rights" case for the Confederate States secession from the USA. The same argument was made by politicians across the south in their efforts to perpetuate segregation. In Georgia, they pasted the Confederate battle flag onto the state flag in protest of Federal interference in their sovereign right to discriminate based on race. The reality is that the Federal government enforced the higher standards of our Constitution in spite of the protests of state pols who sought to maintain the status quo and, particularly, their own political and economic power over an oppressed minority <<
forgive me if i don't want to answer to a higher authority such as kofi annan of the united nations. forgive me if i answer ONLY to the highest authority (in my mind)--the u.s. constitution.
>> Being an integrated part of the global community does not mean ceding our sovereignty <<
ahh, that all depends on exactly what you mean by "integrated". you need to be more specific.
>> It does not mean Americans must be any less American any more than the Union victory in the Civil War meant Cajuns had to be less Cajun. <<
hmm, did you read this article i posted?
Message 16441524
In 1997 the head of Boeing told one interviewer he would be delighted if, twenty years hence, no one thought of Boeing as an American company. My goal, said Phil Condit, is to "rid [Boeing] of its image as an American group."
Back in the 1970s, Carl Gerstacker of Dow envisioned a day when Dow would be free of America. "I have long dreamed," he said, "of buying an island owned by no nation and of establishing the World Headquarters of the Dow Company on the truly neutral ground of such an island, beholden to no nation or society." A spokesman for Union Carbide agreed: "It is not proper for an international corporation to put the welfare of any country in which it does business above that of any other." In any test of loyalties, for such as these, the company comes before the country.
When young Americans were killed in an accident over Iraq, Al Gore offered his condolences "to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations."
you can find example after example where prominent business leaders and politicians have shed their patriotism for the country which made it possible for them to be free, safe, and carefree.
>> It does not mean conservative Muslims have to uncover their heads or devout Sihks must cut their hair. It does not mean Germans must relax their beer purity laws or that the English have to give up their Pound. <<
you wanna bet? there is extreme pressure on britain to abandon her currency and join the EU. let's focus on what it does to america and not worry about other lands for the time being.
>> It simply means that members of the global community must work together to ensure the rule of law <<
whose law??? certainly not the law of the united states constitution, the most just framework for a govt on the planet! "members of the global community must work together...". this is the key phrase to focus on. just like with communism, which sounds good on paper, implementation when taking into account human nature is an entirely different story! no one ever said free trade wasn't a noble idea, it's just not a practical one. how abort i replace globalism with communism to illustrate.
"members of the global community must work together..."
"members of the communist community must work together..."
globalization is no more utopian than communism, even though the idea is a noble one. no different than turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor is a noble cause, although it won't do you much good when dealing with terrorists now will it?
>> that barriers to economic freedom are erased... <<
ok, so there are no barriers. how nice and wonderful. companies can locate where they please, workers can come and go as they please. that is the utopian dream on paper. now let's look at reality. american companies like nike move their factories overseas and exploit women and children for 50 cents an hour. after all, in a global system with "no barriers", producers will seek out the lowest level of wages. furthermore, other american companies move their operations overseas where they can pollute the earth and not be beholden to our environmental laws. saves the corporation more money not having to face our stricter environmental standards. other companies that might not pollute or might even need skilled labor will move their operations elsewhere where they do not have to support the greatest healthcare system in the world that we offer. more jobs flee america. other countries have lower tax rates than the united states and subsidize industry, in order to steal market share. other countries devalue their currency to such a degree that america cannot compete without lowering our standard of living to match theirs. i could go on and on. are you beginning to see why your utopian vision of a new world order sounds good on paper but forgets to take into account that the whole world doesn't operate on the same set of principles we do? there are different cultures, histories, governments, that are nothing like ours and don't ever want to be.
>> that international outlaws are brought to justice <<
that's all fine and good if you don't mind giving up your right as an american to decide who should be brought to justice and how it should be done. you want to give power to kofi annan and his buddies at the u.n. to decide when and how we get bin laden?? in your new world order utopia you would leave the decision up to the u.n. and how to deal with bin laden and he would be treated as a criminal of the world courts. do americans really want that? do we not want to retain our right to respond to a heinous attack on our own soil as we see fit? do we really want a system where we have to try bin laden in a court of law rather than taking matters into our own hands? this is the direction of your new world order utopia.
>> and that oppressed people everywhere are protected and their basic human rights restored. <<
oh my! you are really exposing your liberal mindset now. TELL ME SOMETHING MR BUSCHMAN. no one will argue that we have been moving toward a one world order recently. TELL ME HOW the u.n. protected thousands of innocent serbs from being slaughtered by NATO? how did the U.N. protect 14,000 people in NY and DC? how did the U.N protect 500,000 innocent civilians in iraq? how did it protect millions of people in places like rwanda? afghanistan? somalia? ethiopia? it's real comforting that you're in favor of surrendering american sovereignty so we can have an even bigger bureaucracy like the U.N. which doesn't have the best interests of america in mind deciding how to protect american citizens from terrorist aggression. UNREAL!
>> We need not fear UN representatives and human rights advocates who want to inspect our prisons <<
you f-----g traitor! you want the u.n. to tell americans how to run our own country?????? it may start with them telling us how to run our own prisons. soon it may morph into the u.n. telling us we can't use force to respond to terrorism! MAYBE ONE DAY THE UN TELLS US YOU CAN'T USE FORCE TO DEFEND YOUR CITIZENS, YOU HAVE TO TRY AND CONVICT TERRORISTS! AFTER ALL, THAT'S THE ONLY FAIR AND HUMANE WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, RIGHT? what about osama bin laden's civil rights? if the united nations can decide whether or not we are violating the human rights of prisoners in our own country, how long before they are telling us that we can't go get people like bin laden??? you are unreal, and a perfect example for exposing how ludicrous you new world order communist liberals really are!
>> If we are attacked, we have a right to defend ourselves and the global community has an obligation to help us as we do them <<
once again, sounds nice on paper, but you are taking the decision out of the hands of americans and relying on foreign bodies to make the right decision. scary thought. i just don't trust more govt bureaucrats to do the right thing, especially if ours is only one vote of many.
>> If our freedom is threatened, we must protect it and the global community has the same obligation. <<
HOGWASH!!!! only we as americans have the right to stand up for ourselves. no one else is obligated for shit!! the only people i want deciding how to defend my country is AMERICANS!! you pathetic excuse for an american.
>> Business leaders are part of a "national elite", conspiring from "both coasts" to ensnare America in a web of foreign control. He labels those who see things differently than he as anti-American. <<
they willingly admit it, so did clinton, and now in this post so do you!! mr buchanan is one of the few to have the courage to expose this totally irrational sentiment.
>> His example of Britain's eroding sovereignty, "requiring the British army to accept homosexuals", reminds his audience of the debate in the US over the same issue, even though our debate was an entirely American one. He demonizes globalists by associating them with homosexuals, a common prejudice among his followers. <<
only your prejudice can twists a simple statement into so much more. only you define loot with phrases like jewelry, tv's, rocks through windows, etc. you are the demagogue!!!
>> Uber alles" literally means "over all", two harmless words on the face of it, but conveying darker meaning - images of un-American loyalties and foreign enemies <<
only your active imagination can take a simple phrase and turn it into a vivid image.
>> PS: I should thank you for forcing me to think this through, to analyze the issues and the debaters, rather than stopping at the level of intuitive reaction. <<
i thank you for exposing the true agenda of globalists and one world order dreamers. i hope your totally naive and ignorant views as detailed in your post serve as an example of how not to let the sovereignty of this great nation we live in be squandered to global interests that do not align with ours. |
