Support U.S. sovereignty
Published: Saturday, Dec. 8, 2012, 9:00 p.m.
After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson initiated the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations. The U.N. may appear to have a noble cause. Who would suggest an organization whose goal is world peace could be dangerous?
Many politicians do more to promote a one-world government than to strengthen our country.
Look at what has happened to our country economically —free-trade agreements are destroying our revenue and increasing entitlement costs. When manufacturing jobs leave, taxpayers go on welfare. The middle class made strong by the manufacturing sector is fading. Middle-class people would never support free trade.
Once the world's economies are more aligned, global government is easier to implement.
The European Union is a small version of what is to come.
In every presidential election, both major parties give us a pro-free-trade nominee, even though government statistics indicate free trade increases the deficit.
We need to call our federal officials and demand a 28th constitutional amendment guaranteeing that the U.S. does not participate in any form of government, agreement or resolution that decreases U.S. sovereignty.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Raise minimum wage
- Hit nail on head
- Government ‘forcing’ I
- Good intentions, bad results
- God & government
- Shallow & uninformed
- ObamaCare & ‘geezers’
- Government ‘forcing’ II
- Judges for hire?
- Avoid TFA’s trap
- Antiquated criterion