Why did nobody bring this up before millions of violent foreigners were imported?
A report written by the German parliament’s legal experts has found that parliament and not Angela Merkel should have decided on opening Germany’s borders to refugees in September 2015.
The report by the Bundestag Scientific Office, a team of non-partisan legal experts, stated that it is the role of the Bundestag (German parliament) to decide on all matters of essential relevance to the state.
In the document, the main findings of which were published by Die Welt on Friday, the experts do not explicitly say that the decision made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on September 4th 2015 to take in tens of thousands of refugees was a decision “of essential relevance to the state.”
Instead, they refer to a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court on refugees reuniting with their families in Germany. The ruling stated that “parliament is obliged to decide on whether, and to what extent, the proportion of non-Germans in the population will be altered by the arrival of foreigners inside the country.”
Die Welt states that the implication is that the parliament should indeed have voted on whether Germany opened its borders, as the decision led to a change in the proportion of non-Germans to Germans in the country.
Nobody thought to try and stop it in the courts? If they had, do you think the courts would have ruled to stop it? This was always happening.
The world works differently than we think. I’ve said it before, but I suspect most do not understand the degree to which it is true.
When I first began promoting r/K, it had blown my mind. I figured all the Conservative media outlets would jump on it. In a few weeks National Review, Talk radio, the conservative shows would all be discussing it, because obviously those outlets wanted to intellectually stimulate their viewers, and keep them reliably informed of all the state of the art information out there in the field.
It seemed simple. National Review was paid by its readers to keep them informed, so it would expose them to anything interesting to earn it’s subscription fees, and keep them subscribing. What magazine that is paid to inform its readers would not inform them off the biggest idea in the field in 100 years? And yet, they won’t touch it.
And it is the same thing in government. We were raised with a believable lie. We elect leaders who try to lead our nations and represent us as best they can, and then they lead the nation as best they can to try and get reelected. It does make sense that politicians would try to get reelected, so we go along with it.
Personally, I think this belief, which kind of makes sense if you think about it alone, does not make much sense when you consider one thing. For it to be true, very smart, very rich, very powerful, very connected people would have to sit on their hands, as all sorts of opportunities to enrich themselves and gain more power passed them by. For what we were taught to be true, none of them would ever join together and try to manipulate events and control politicians to gain personal advantage. Either that, or our politicians would have to be absolutely incorruptible, and of the most stellar moral character.
Neither seems very likely when you picture our Darwinian world. If the rich and powerful of olden days had no such urge to manipulate events, they would certainly have been replaced by rich and powerful who did. And nobody has to ask about the vast majority of our politicians, once the powerful organize and take the reins. If McCain hadn’t killed the health care bill, someone else would have, and if that someone else hadn’t another person entirely was waiting in the wings to be given their orders to kill it by just one vote. All that we see, with the likely exception of the Donald, is preordained.
Once you understand that, everything else makes sense.
And it means the Apocalypse will be running according to rules we have not adapted our minds to. It would pay to get that straightened out in your brain before the shit hits the fan. Your personal survival may depend upon it.
the National Review was never conservative.
AC here are two links you might want to view. there is a search tool you may want to try.
https://www.gtrpweb.com/pricing?next=%2F
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLabQCCrwoAo7_HnREBJ1xw/feed
Reply ↓
[…] Source link […]
You’re only partly right. Regular hardworking, law abiding citizens are ruthlessly held to the letter of the law.