The E. U. and the U. N. seem to play off the same playbook.
They are off base on nearly every topic.
If I lived in the E. U., I’d be angry as could be, because my votes for national leaders whouldn’t mean squat. These organizations dictate to nations what they will do, and the average person gets no say.
Now that being said, isn’t that exactly how the Republicans and the Democrats treat us? We do get to elect them, but that’s the last input we seem to have.
Great point.
Didn’t some of our ancestors throw some tea in a harbor for having no representation?
“.....If I lived in the E. U., I’d be angry as could be, because my votes for national leaders whouldn’t mean squat.”
No you wouldn’t. If you were native to Europe you would welcome the EU and support it.
Europe has historically been ruled by monarchs. One sovereign responsible for the masses. This subjugation has been bred into them. They can not under stand the concept of every man is sovereign as bred into us in USofA.
If a unified effort can be put in place to methodically remove those elected officials who ignore the mandate of those who put them in office I believe you would see a sharp decline in the number of representatives going against the wishes of their constituents.
After all the congressional filth care about just one thing and that is getting re elected.
The EU right from the start has professed “respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter” as Article 3 Section 5 of the Treaty of Lisbon puts it. And where did Alger Hiss, the general secretary of the committee that wrote that charter, get those principles? From the 1936 USSR constitution.
Think that goal was accomplished, and perhaps more than a half-century ago?
If I lived in the E. U., I’d be angry as could be, because my votes for national leaders wouldn’t mean squat. These organizations dictate to nations what they will do, and the average person gets no say.
Now that being said, isn’t that exactly how the Republicans and the Democrats treat us? We do get to elect them, but that’s the last input we seem to have. …
“Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.”
— Communist goal #15
The New Deal, Dean Acheson wrote approvingly in a book called A Democrat Looks At His Party, “conceived of the federal government as the whole people organized to do what had to be done.” A year later, Mr. (Arthur) Larson wrote A Republican Looks At His Party, and made much the same claim in his book for modern Republicans. The “underlying philosophy” of the New Republicanism, said Mr. Larson, is that “if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government.”The Naked Communist was published two years before Goldwater’s book too.
Here we have, by prominent spokesmen of both political parties, an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government. There is no reference by either of them to the Constitution, or any attempt to define the legitimate functions of government. The government can do whatever needs to be done; note, too, the implicit but necessary assumption that it is the government itself that determines what needs to be done. We must not, I think, underrate the importance of these statements. They reflect the view of a majority of the leaders of one of our parties, and of a strong minority among the leaders of the other, and they propound the first principle of totalitarianism: that the State is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the State. …
— The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Chapter 2, page 15