Sovereignty is the issue

Read this Ron Paul column for his view on the subject. I'll phrase a similar point in my own words.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, a major point of contention between the colonists and the British King that he highlighted was the concept that legitimate government can only exist when it operates by the consent of the governed. Anything more is tyranny by definition.

Today's Democrat party often proclaims the message declaring the importance of "democracy", though I'm sure most of them understand we are not truly a government of that variety. George Bush has based his foreign policy on "spreading democracy and freedom" around the globe in an effort to stabilize the many unsteady governments which exist today.

Yet, many members of these parties seem to defer authority to the United Nations and insist its edicts are binding upon Americans and other sovereign nations. How can this be? Is the assumption that the UN enjoys a majority of consent from the people in Syria, Sudan, Brazil, Poland, the United States and all the other "member states"? I hardly think so, as I surely do not consent to governance by the UN, and in light of the oil-for-food scandals, as well as the "stingy" commentary by Jan Egeland, the time for to get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US is right now.

Otherwise, another of Thomas Jefferson's prophetic and supremely wise statements of principle may materialize in the near future.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."