Posted on 05/29/2018 11:39:02 AM PDT by C19fan
Italy’s populist Five Star Movement has demanded European Union (EU) bosses “defend democracy” after Germany’s EU Commissioner appeared to threaten voters, telling them that the “markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing”. MEP and former UKIP leader Nigel Farage also intervened, slamming Commissioner Gunther Oettinger’s comments as “disgusting bullying”.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Another blog or site commented how the Germans achieved Hitler’s goal of dominating Europe without needing to use bullets.
No subject of the EU bureaucracy is free. No subject of a parliamentary “democracy” is free either. Not England, not Italy, not Iraq, not Australia. None.
Germans bossing around the Italians since 476 AD
I get a real hoot out of all the folks that address Democracy all the time.
Admittedly, I’m not an expert on European government models, but it seems to me they have a representative government. Things aren’t fully Democratic.
Of course the Democratic party in the U. S. loves to address this, as if we were a Democracy. As a official Republican, I’d like to remind them their grasp of the situation is severely flawed. I love to call them Democrats to tweak them. I never used the word Democratic to reference them. I did so here to point the difference out, but it’s been more than a decade since I referenced them as Democratic.
We are a Constitutional Representative Republic.
Got that Democrats?
America’s globalists and DC elites think and behave the same way.
Deplorables!
The Bilderburger masks are coming off. Take it from someone who was a waiter at their annual confab once.
How did you get that gig?
I had a Top Secret clearance. It wasn’t voluntary. They don’t allow the normal staff to work during those, thus they bring in the military. One of the oddest experiences of my life. Whatever your worst conspiracy theory is, it doesn’t go far enough.
Panzers when?
Yikes!
Unfortunately, we Freepers seem to be pretty much the only ones who know that. Even Trump has referred to us as a "Democracy."
I've never heard Trump or any pro-Trump team member, Senator or Rep call us a "Republic." I don't even think I've heard any Fox News conservative call us a Republic, nor have I heard any of these people jump on Democrats for constantly calling us a "Democracy."
Sad.
Germany only has enough tanks to field the equivalent of a Panzer division.
That gets a “wow.”
I won’t bump you up against the borders of your clearance by asking for specific details. But, it sounds like you got to listen and look while serving.
I do have a question, though. Isn’t Bilderberger a private, NGO, like Davos? Why would the military be brought in? I didn’t think we hired them out as, well, private caterers.
I agree. Sad but true...
Go look at your question and think it through. If they can put a Barack Obama or Bill Clinton in the White House, what is siphoning off a hundred troops for a week?
Like the EU being involved up to its metaphorical armpits in Spygate.. ?
Thank you for making this distinction as clearly as you did!Your point is well taken.
America never was a "Democracy," as Liberal Democrats/Progressives claim.
On the 50th Anniversary of the U. S. Constitution, John Quincy Adams, by invitation of the N. Y. Historical Society, made quite a point of making that same distinction, in his "Jubilee" Address.
The Founders and Framers of America's Constitutional government made their intentions and their Constitutional structuring clear at the time, and all the later talk of "democracy" reflects the Liberal/Progressive ideology--not the Framers' philosophy of individual liberty and limited government power.
Perhaps the most thorough, well-founded and complete explanation of how the Framers of America's Constitution of the United States of America "constituted" a form of self-government which was--in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "A Republic. . . if you can keep it. . . . " can be found in John Quincy Adams's "Jubilee" Address, delivered, by invitation of the New York Historical Society, in New York City in April 1839. That Jubilee Address magnificently explained the reasons for the Framers' choice of republic over that of a democracy.
If you want to have handy for constitutionally-illiterate Progressives who may call this a "democracy," then you want to read that Address.
Today, in 2018, when confronted with a decision between individual freedom and slavery, otherwise known as liberty and tyranny, Americans who prefer freedom must be armed with ideas and principles which are "self-evident" and plain. Otherwise, they cannot fend off the onslaught of the "counterfeit ideas" of Progressive ideologues.
When America's Founders and Framers of their Constitution wanted to convince ordinary farmers and citizens of the merits of a written "People's" Constitution to limit the powers of those to whom they entrust the powers of government, they published and circulated 85 essays, known as THE FEDERALIST.
It's time for citizens, once again, to examine those strong and clear words of Madison Hamilton, and Jay. They are just as clear for today's audience as they were then. Circulate the following excerpts to your friends. Even the least politically savvy will "get" Madison's meaning, especially in light of the power grab now going on in Washington. After all, THE FEDERALIST was the Framers' authoritative explanation of their Constitution, and directed by the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia in 1825 to be used as the text for its law school in its studies of "the general principles of liberty and the rights of man," and said by Jefferson to "constitute 'the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the U.S., on questions as to its genuine meaning.'":
"The house of representatives... can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny." - Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788
"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." - Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788
"Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the cords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people." - Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788
"If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it." - Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788
"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788
"The propensity of all single and numerous assemblies (is) to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions." - Federalist Papers, No. 62, February 27, 1788
"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few not for the many." - Federalist Papers, No. 62, February 27, 1788
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow." - Federalist Papers, No. 62, February 27, 1788
Note particularly the following words of wisdom from Federalist No. 63, and take heart. You are doing what you were meant to do when you speak out on intrusions on your liberty. According to Madison:
"As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?" - Federalist Papers, No. 63, 1788
I hear you. Special detail.
I think of Bilderberger as some conspiracy rumor, because I don’t know much about it. Many FReepers and other conservatives gripe about it, but it seems like a lot of innuendo and speculation. It seems far away. Hence, to my naive mind, it doesn’t seem like something a government would grace with security or services.
You have experience which says otherwise. I hope the grits were good—I expect the fixings were luxurious.
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.