PDA

View Full Version : Getting Off The Globalist Chessboard.




pcosmar
06-17-2011, 08:54 PM
A good article and well worth the read.

http://neithercorp.us/npress/2011/04/getting-off-the-globalist-chessboard-an-introduction

By Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers
and Brandon Smith of the Alternative Market Project


To put it simply, America is nearing a checkmate scenario. Like the final torrid maneuvers of a rigged chess match, we have been pressed, manipulated, and attacked into the last remaining corner of the “grand global chessboard” left to us; centralized control of all social and economic power into the hands of an unworthy elite. If we continue playing the game by their rules, we will lose. There is no doubt. There have been many solutions presented to us in the past to combat this development, but nearly all of them function within the constraints of Federal politics. Working within the system has earned us no quarter, and frankly, no results. Our only recourse (and, frankly, the best recourse all along) is to STOP relying on the rules of their game, and to walk away from the chess board completely.

edit
New link.
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/96-getting-off-the-globalist-chessboard-an-introduction

Travlyr
06-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Excellent.

Southron
06-17-2011, 10:43 PM
He has some good ideas . Numbers 1 and 3 are going to be the hardest to accomplish at the local level. Most food is still grown here in the U.S. but is often shipped cross country.

Economic independence is where I am mainly worried though. We have lost so many basic, useful skills that could be necessary.

lynnf
06-18-2011, 04:38 AM
another entry on the same website:

The Alternative Market Project Has Been Launched!

http://neithercorp.us/npress/2011/03/the-alternative-market-project-has-been-launched/

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 06:17 AM
Rather than address the nonsense in the article, here's a question I'd like to ask of those who believe it to be true:

If you guys believe that globalization is a process by which power is centralized and rights are taken away from individuals, then why do you support Ron Paul, a candidate whose libertarian ideology would advance the process of globalization faster than any other president in history?

Travlyr
06-18-2011, 06:29 AM
Rather than address the nonsense in the article, here's a question I'd like to ask of those who believe it to be true:

If you guys believe that globalization is a process by which power is centralized and rights are taken away from individuals, then why do you support Ron Paul, a candidate whose libertarian ideology would advance the process of globalization faster than any other president in history?

It would be accomplished peacefully, voluntarily, and prosperously for everyone who wanted to participate, not for just a few elite warmongers who rule with weapons, deceit, and stolen property.

pcosmar
06-18-2011, 06:35 AM
If you guys believe that globalization is a process by which power is centralized and rights are taken away from individuals, then why do you support Ron Paul, a candidate whose libertarian ideology would advance the process of globalization faster than any other president in history?
How so? Ron would work to remove us from both the UN and IMF central banking and advocates National Sovereignty.

He would remove our military from the role of Global Police. He supports Individualism and opposed collectivism.

How exactly would he advance Globalism?

FrankRep
06-18-2011, 06:52 AM
then why do you support Ron Paul, a candidate whose libertarian ideology would advance the process of globalization faster than any other president in history?

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist who is against the United Nations. Please clarify your statement Teaser.

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 06:57 AM
How so? Ron would work to remove us from both the UN and IMF central banking and advocates National Sovereignty.

He would remove our military from the role of Global Police. He supports Individualism and opposed collectivism.

How exactly would he advance Globalism?


Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist who is against the United Nations. Please clarify your statement Teaser.

Globalization is primarily an economic process, not a political one. Ron would eliminate tariffs, domestic subsidies, currency manipulation or any other other process designed to give American businesses an advantage over foreign competition.

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 06:58 AM
It would be accomplished peacefully, voluntarily, and prosperously for everyone who wanted to participate, not for just a few elite warmongers who rule with weapons, deceit, and stolen property.

This sounds a lot like something you'd hear during a WTO protest. I have no clue what it's supposed to mean.

FrankRep
06-18-2011, 07:09 AM
Globalization is primarily an economic process, not a political one. Ron would eliminate tariffs, domestic subsidies, currency manipulation or any other other process designed to give American businesses an advantage over foreign competition.
Trading with other countries is a positive thing. The problem is when the United States starts destroying its sovereignty through the United Nations and Government-managed ("Free Trade") trade agreements.

pcosmar
06-18-2011, 07:20 AM
Globalization is primarily an economic process, not a political one. Ron would eliminate tariffs, domestic subsidies, currency manipulation or any other other process designed to give American businesses an advantage over foreign competition.

Well,, wrong on several levels.
It is a political process and plan. Socialism on a global scale and is being imposed by political means, as well as economic warfare.

NAFTA and other Globalist programs have already done those things that you mentioned and have not given advantage to American business but instead have eliminated any advantage. And have moved both jobs and manufacturing elsewhere.
Ron would work to reverse that.

Travlyr
06-18-2011, 07:21 AM
This sounds a lot like something you'd hear during a WTO protest. I have no clue what it's supposed to mean.

Laissez-faire free-market capitalism using honest money in transactions while respecting the rule of law.

pcosmar
06-18-2011, 07:24 AM
. I have no clue

That is abundantly apparent.

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 09:14 AM
Trading with other countries is a positive thing. The problem is when the United States starts destroying its sovereignty through the United Nations and Government-managed ("Free Trade") trade agreements.


Well,, wrong on several levels.
It is a political process and plan. Socialism on a global scale and is being imposed by political means, as well as economic warfare.

NAFTA and other Globalist programs have already done those things that you mentioned and have not given advantage to American business but instead have eliminated any advantage. And have moved both jobs and manufacturing elsewhere.
Ron would work to reverse that.

You both seem to miss the point that Ron Paul generally opposes free-trade agreements because they don’t go far enough to remove trade barriers.

A Paul administration would do nothing to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, in fact, his anti-tariff, anti-subsidy policies might encourage even more outsourcing.

Teaser Rate
06-18-2011, 09:17 AM
Laissez-faire free-market capitalism using honest money in transactions while respecting the rule of law.

I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean within the context of International trade. Do you support eliminating trade barriers or not?

And if so, are you comfortable with becoming increasingly reliant on the rest of the World for economic sustainability?

FrankRep
06-18-2011, 09:30 AM
You both seem to miss the point that Ron Paul generally opposes free-trade agreements because they don’t go far enough to remove trade barriers.

You're way off base.


Ron Paul on NAFTA, The WTO and the loss of U.S. Sovereignty


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTqts7amx0



Why efforts to repeal NAFTA and do away with free trade agreements are squarely within the conservative tradition and in the heritage of the GOP.


Real Conservatives Oppose NAFTA (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/7800-real-conservatives-oppose-nafta)


Daniel Sayani | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
09 June 2011


One of the most important, but widely unknown bills currently proposed in Congress is legislation that would end American participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The bill, H.R. 4759, calls for America’s withdrawal from the free trade agreement, and is sponsored by several Democrats and a small cadre of Republicans, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (R- N.C.).

Introduced back in February, the legislation seeks to immediately terminate American participation in NAFTA. Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C., left), the bill’s chief sponsor, says that “NAFTA has done way too much damage, and we need to repeal it! NAFTA has cost too many jobs, eroded our industrial base, and decimated towns and communities. Enough is enough — we need to focus on creating jobs right here in the United States — not in foreign countries!” McIntyre also says that NAFTA and similar trade agreements have resulted in a 29-percent decline in U.S. manufacturing employment since 1993, discouraging investments in U.S. manufacturing facilities while accelerating the erosion of American industry, and he is supporting a “Make it in America” plan that will help bring back our manufacturing base and create jobs right here at home.

Opposition to free trade agreements, while a minority view in today’s internationalist-oriented Republican Party, is in all actuality a robust and important part of the history of the GOP. Robert Lighthizer, a trade representative in the Reagan administration, rightfully argues that free trade agreements were a long-standing policy of leftists, including Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton (who led the push for America’s entry into NAFTA in 1993), and Barack Obama. Lighthizer (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06lighthizer.html) also says that those considered to be America’s leading conservatives, including former Senator Jesse Helms (R-.N.C.), former Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio), Alexander Hamilton (one of our nation’s Founding Fathers), and even former President Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote that “pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fiber.” In fact, the first vocal Republican in support of free trade was Dwight Eisenhower, who was vociferously opposed by conservatives, including supporters of Robert Taft and the then-nascent John Birch Society (Robert Welch‘s damning investigation, The Politician, discussed much of Eisenhower‘s leftist tendencies).

Lighthizer also rebukes those free-traders who choose to identify themselves as Reagan Republicans. While Reagan may have chosen to follow certain free-trade policies at times, his record reflects a far more nuanced position on the issue. He arranged for voluntary restraint agreements to limit imports of automobiles and steel. He provided temporary import relief for Harley-Davidson. He limited imports of sugar and textiles. His administration pushed for the “Plaza Accord” of 1985, an agreement that made Japanese imports more expensive by raising the value of the yen.

Yet, Reagan was certainly not the first Republican President to espouse “protectionist” sensibilities. Calvin Coolidge, who was one of the most constitutionalist Presidents in American history, clearly understood the need to defend American industry by blocking free trade policies. In his Second Annual Message of December 3, 1924, Coolidge famously declared that “the protective tariff enables our people to live according to a better standard and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, any time, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed.” In a similar vein, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1921_timeline/smoot_tariff.html) of 1930 is yet another example of Republican integrity on the issue of free trade; the tariff sought to protect American agriculture and industry, and in spite of criticisms that it worsened the effects of the Great Depression, monetarists such as Milton Friedman argue that this Americanist economic measure actually helped mitigate the effects of the Depression.

In recent times, however, both Democrats and Republicans have worked to deliver more failed free trade agreements, with few exceptions (especially on the Republican side). While the last Bush administration negotiated several bilateral trade agreements, the Republican Congress notably blocked several free trade policies. In March 2002, for example, Bush proudly signed "temporary safeguards" that imposed tariffs of eight percent to 30 percent on most steel imports for three years. In May 2002, Bush also signed legislation increasing agricultural subsidies by as much as 80 percent, leading economists to label Bush an “anti-globalizer.” Bush also supported steel tariffs, as opposed to Clinton, who opposed steel and other protective tariffs. In mid-November 2006, 60 House Republicans also helped block a free trade deal with Vietnam, supplying the margin of defeat and embarrassing the President on the eve of a state visit. And, in the 2008 Republican presidential debates, in contrast to the internationalism of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo both expressed their strong opposition to NAFTA, CAFTA, and other free trade agreements, with Rep. Hunter correctly attributing to NAFTA the surge in illegal immigration from Mexico.

While the effort to repeal NAFTA clearly has strong historical and ideological precedent within the Republican Party (evident also in the fact that 43 House Republicans voted against NAFTA in 1993), it is unclear whether the current Republican Congress will support H.R. 4759, despite the fact that many Tea Partiers bemoan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/tea-party-test-korea-free_b_779067.html) the consequences of free trade. In a recent poll put out by the Mellman Group and the Alliance for American Manufacturing, 74 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters would support a "national manufacturing strategy to make sure that economic, tax, labor, and trade policies in this country work together to help support manufacturing in the United States." Likewise, 56 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters "favor a tariff on products imported from other countries that are cheaper because they came from a country that does not have to comply with any climate change regulations in the country where the products were made." These sentiments are inspired by both the ill-effects of free trade on American manufacturing and the desire to preserve national sovereignty, which is a key reason to defeat NAFTA, since it is under the pretext of this free-trade agreement that plans for the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway are secretly being moved forward.

NAFTA also severely compromises America’s national defense capabilities. Opponents of NAFTA, including former Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) say that when the Defense Department needed to rapidly procure Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Iraq in 2007, the Pentagon was forced to purchase 17,700 of them, and because of diminished manufacturing capacity, it took nine different contractors working together to build all those vehicles. "The decline in our manufacturing base left the contractors without a trained workforce to build these vehicles. This led to delays and choke points in production and overall delivery of the MRAPs," he said. "This was a logistical nightmare."

He continued, "Without a sufficient industrial base capable of mass production, we were forced to spend more tax dollars because each contractor had to train workers and re-invent the parts for production. In some cases, we were dependent on foreign countries.”

The GOP would be wise to return to its roots as an anti-free trade agreement, economically-nationalistic party that upholds national sovereignty, prosperity, national defense capabilities, and enhanced opportunity for the American middle class, and with a burgeoning protectionist stream within the Tea Party movement and an out-of-control immigration problem rallying the conservative base, now is the time to repeal NAFTA.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/7800-real-conservatives-oppose-nafta

pcosmar
06-18-2011, 09:37 AM
You both seem to miss the point that Ron Paul generally opposes free-trade agreements because they don’t go far enough to remove trade barriers.

Wrong, He opposes them because they ARE NOT free trade. They are managed trade. They restrict Free trade despite their False names.

Southron
06-18-2011, 10:53 AM
You both seem to miss the point that Ron Paul generally opposes free-trade agreements because they don’t go far enough to remove trade barriers.

A Paul administration would do nothing to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, in fact, his anti-tariff, anti-subsidy policies might encourage even more outsourcing.

You have to look at his overall anti-globalist agenda. De-regulation and lowering taxes may bring some jobs back.

Trade barriers have already essentially been eliminated for the countries that could hurt us the most by Reagan, Clinton and Bush.

White Bear Lake
06-18-2011, 11:01 AM
If you guys believe that globalization is a process by which power is centralized and rights are taken away from individuals, then why do you support Ron Paul, a candidate whose libertarian ideology would advance the process of globalization faster than any other president in history?

Globalization and "free" trade are one area where I don't entirely agree with Paul. Trust me, I've read Mises, Hayek, and all the others and understand the entire theory of why free trade is good. But I don't think we can get true free trade. Governments in other countries will hack into private trades and take their share, and will try and bend the playing field to suit their needs. We need to get out of NAFTA, the G8, WTO, UN, etc. They do nothing but screw over American sovereignty. And I don't think it would hurt Paul to become more protectionist.

pcosmar
06-28-2011, 04:53 PM
New link to the article. (Old one no longer working)
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/96-getting-off-the-globalist-chessboard-an-introduction

showpan
06-28-2011, 06:10 PM
Globalization is nothing more than the idea that someone who does absolutely nothing deserves to make more money from their company stock than the people who actually work to make something.

NAFTA not only "regulated" trade...it payed companies to move and take our jobs with them. This treasonous act continues to export more jobs than goods.

Globalists (see definition above) also are trying to pass amnesty now and increase the H1b visa program which is nothing more than allowing millions of people to come and offer their services for half the pay.

They have created an unfair environment of too many people competing for too little jobs. This was all to lower the natural cycle of wage increase through supply and demand and increase share price and profits. They used the reasoning that it would open up new markets which would increase jobs....they lied...their true intentions can be found in wiki leaks and the plutonomy reports.

If we were to withdraw from NAFTA, CAFTA and all of the other bad trade agreements that an 8yr old could have made better, I sincerely hope that other countries would impose high tariffs on us so that we could impose them on their goods. If it were up to me, I would impose huge tariffs on those companies that have moved and add a tax on any profits not spent here. Any and all government expenditures for things such as infrastructure and military would have to be 100% American made right down to the broom someone would use to clean up this mess we are now in and the pen used to sign the Executive Order.

Brazil now has a similar policy of 85% Brazilian made or you are taxed at a much higher rate to make up for the difference and then some. They now hold the worlds 5th economy up from last in just 10 short years. Our economy was decimated in less time than that.