@ KA

1)  Frank Gaffney, a conservative former senior State Department official, may not be "the world's astute socio-political commentator", but he is still in a very different class from you.  He certainly would never lower himself to Amsterdamsky's level of word choice and blindfolding, unlike you apparently.  

2)  What exactly is the argument contained in your "Oh please..."?   Are you denying that the American Constitution has acted as the guiding principle in the organisation of the American political system for about 230 years?  Or, more likely, do you take offense at Gaffney's reference to "the most succesful political experiment in history"?   What better measure of democratic "success" could there be than 'endurance'?  Can you name any other political system in human history that has endured longer AND that could be reasonably described as 'democratic'?  You don't have to like Americans, nor ascribe to their ethos, but you should be honest enough to recognise that genuine power alternation takes place in the USA at regular intervals and that freedom of political speech is effectively being maintained there.

3) American history has shown both periods of isolationist tendencies and of interventionist (not so much "globalist") tendencies.  It is true that the latter has again been dominant among America's foreign policy elites after WW2, although the average American's interest in the rest of the world has always been rather limited. 

It is a mark (another one!) of your irrational anti-Americanism that you would blame the USA today for shaping the postwar international system of cooperation among nations after WW2, when America's power was at its peak.  What was the alternative?  And, how was this more in America's interest than in the interests of anyone else?  It was certainly much more in Europe's interest than in America's.   It was an extraordinary act of generosity to insist on giving France, Britain and China, veto power in the Security Council, when these countries had been effectively defeated and economically largely destroyed by fascism (exhaustion in the case of Britain), and this over the objections of Stalin and the Soviet union.   It was also an extraordinary act of generosity to ensure that the defeated nations of Europe received a combined larger share of quotas (and thus voting power) in the multilateral financial organisations established in Bretton Woods.   Moreover, for several decades after the war, it was mainly thanks to the efforts of the USA, Germany and Japan, that the drift towards 'unaccountable bureaucratisation' and expansion could be resisted at the UN, the World Bank and IMF.   That this drift became irresistable after the decolonisation process and economic recovery in Western Europe, was certainly not the fault of American Democratic and Republican Administrations, nor of 'conservative' German governments in subsequent decades. 

The only sensible thing you wrote in your last contribution is that "...Eurocrat politics is...an extension of the politics of the EU's most influential members".

Frank Gaffney: "Yet, the essence of the most successful political experiment in history — the United States of America — is the sovereign power entrusted by the people via our Constitution to our elected, accountable representatives."

Oh please...

Frank Gaffney: "The trouble for the Tranzies is that a lot of folks who value their freedoms — notably, the American people and many who represent them in Congress — generally don't fancy such arrangements. They see them for what they are: big government on steroids, unwieldy, unchecked and unresponsive to the will of the ruled."

Bullsh*t. The Americans have been globalist since the close of the Second World War, building and supporting international mechanisms of trade and diplomacy. Americans may fear an Orwellian world government, but a supranational system, so long as it works in their favor is clearly possible. Indeed, Washington supported the EU, UN, WTO, Bretton-Woods, NATO, etc. because it was the centrepiece of these alliances.

Moreover, European Union member states have been attempting to wrest control of Brussels to their own agendas, notably the UK, France and Germany, which indicates that Eurocrat politics is merely an extension of the politics of the EU's most influential members. So what if the EU is torn down? Western European anti-nationalist governments will continue with their ill-fated policies and programmes.

In the final analysis, however, Frank Gaffney is not the world's most astute socio-political commentator.

<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173">World-government</a>

"The trouble for the Tranzies is that a lot of folks who value their freedoms — notably, the American people and many who represent them in Congress — generally don't fancy such arrangements. "

yeah we prefer private slimy foreign lobby groups over large unaccountable public bureaucracies to rule our lives.