Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Tyranny in America


Taxation without representation is tyranny.

Q: The average American worked 113 days to pay their federal, state and local taxes in 2008.  Is that not excessive? 
A: Well, uh, maybe.  But it's not tyranny.  You have elected representation.  Local officials, state officials, a representative and two senators in Washington, and a president in the White House.

Q: Yes...but who do these people really represent?  Do they represent you and me, or do they represent special interest groups?
A: Well, of course special interest groups have some influence, and that is sanctioned by the constitution, but your elected officials represent you, and you have the power to hold them accountable at the polls.

Q: Right now we have a huge spending bill winding its way through Congress.  When we are done paying interest charges, the total cost could easily exceed $1 trillion.  Understandably, this bill is NOT supported by most voters.  Congressional leaders are ignoring the will of the people, are they not?
A: Sometimes our elected officials are forced to take action that is very unpopular.  That's how our system worksthis is a democratic republic, not a democracy.  In a democratic republic, the elected officials help to moderate the shifting whims of public opinion.

Q: But what if Congress looses touch with the voters?  What if our elected officials develop a herd mentality and begin making irrational decisions?  What if they begin making unpopular decisions that are, in fact, not in the best interests of their constituents?
A: That's where the Constitution comes into play.  The Constitution (particularly the Tenth Amendment) places limits on what the government can legally do.  The constitution is the supreme law of the land and protects citizens from abuses from the government.

Q: You think the constitution places limits on the government?  
A: Yes, the Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government does not have powers that are not explicitly delegated by the constitution.

Q: Does the Constitution explicitly grant the Federal Government the power to spend billions of dollars on university building projects?  To spend tens of millions of dollars on the arts?  To spend tens of billions of dollars to feed fat people?  To spend hundreds of millions of dollars on train systems?  To spend hundreds of millions of dollars on hybrid cars?
A: Well, those are all very important things.  If we don't make those investments, it will cost our society much more in the long run.  (By the way, not everyone who receives food stamps is fat.)

Q: You're getting us off track.  Does the Constitution grant the Federal Government the authority to spend money on art, food, cars, trains and university buildings?
A: Well, not exactly.  But this spending is for the greater good.

Q: So the Constitution, the one thing that stands between us and the insidious abuses of a derelict government, isn't working very well for us, is it?
A: Well...

Q: Next question.  When Congress ignores the Constitution and ignores the voterswhen you have a President who has lamented the fact that the Supreme Court did not "break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution"when your Commander In Chief spends an inordinate amount of time voicing the concerns of the nation's critics, rivals and enemies, what kind of government do you have?
A: [blank stare]

This bears repeating: taxation without representation is tyranny.


More


The change you can believe in is the change missing from your pocket.
Why is it that Obama, his economic advisers, and the liberal Congressmen strong-arming the legislature into passing the “stimulus” package, all ignore the lessons of history?  Here is the answer: not one of those individuals, entrusted with the welfare of America, cares about the lessons of history, the economy, or the country. They care about power.

Britain to America: 'What have you done?'
Given Obama's radical roots in the neo-Marxist, nihilist politics of Saul Alinsky, it is the undermining of America's fundamental values that is likely to be this President's most strategically important goal. 

Murphy's Law, the Peter Principle and Barack Obama
The perfect collision of Murphy's Law with the Peter Principle has arrived to explode in our faces.

Sometimes a President Is Just a President
If one wants a hawks-eye view into the minds of Obama voters, all one need do is read this piece published by the New York Times last week, detailing the fantasies, dreams and drooling-envy delusions of his followers.  Their celebrity is now their President. h/t, American Thinker

62% Want Stimulus Plan to Have More Tax Cuts, Less Spending

Audio: Hannity grills Specter on his support for the spendulus package.

11 comments:

M said...

(Taxation without representation is tyranny.)

That would make barry a tyrant. Game, point, match.

Dan Trabue said...

And so, all those years of Reagan/Bush/Bush running up record deficits, THAT was tyranny, too? Since I had no representation during those years?

As long as you're consistent, fair enough. I'd still disagree. But at least you'd be consistent.

Clay Bowler said...

Taxation without representation! What a joke! Here in Springfield, Missouri, the city management messed up the city's pension fund so badly they are nearly $200 millioin in the hole. They proposed a 1% sales tax which failed last week. A day later Greg Burris, the city manager, started moving to get the proposal back on the ballot in June. It's like we don't care what you think, we are going to beat you and get your money not matter how you voted. Why bother voting if this is now the attitude with politicians? We are going to shove it down the voter's throats until they are tired of hearing us whine. Politicians like Greg Burris must have been spoiled kids when they grew up and now they are using those same spoiled tactics on the taxpayers. It's not the taxpayer's mess. The city needs to make cuts in their budget, not cut our budgets.

Clay Bowler said...

Oh Dan Trabue, let's not forget who was responsible for appropriation bills during the Reagan administration. We many have had a conservative President, but we didn't have a conservative Congress.

In 2009, we have a liberal president and a liberal congress that makes the debt of the 80s look like pennies. How could you compare the two. The Obama administration will oversee more spending in a matter of weeks than years of Reagan.

Brooke said...

Why not let the American people cast a yes or no vote to the spendulus package?

Because they know it will fail miserably.

The House, Senate and President are all tyrants. Anyone who votes for this thing is making slaves of the American people.

It's a new era of serfdom.

RightKlik said...

M: Barry and his friends in Congress have hijacked our Republic.

DT: Tyranny during the Reagan/Bush/Bush years? To the extent to which the constraints and the intent of the constitution have been ignored, I would say that the Congress of the Reagan era was flirting with disaster, Pelosi/Reid/Bush were playing with fire, and Pelosi/Reid/Obama have crossed the line.

You seem to have oversimplified my argument. I am not saying that simply because someone disagrees with the president or because that someone disagrees with how Congress is spending money and running up record deficits, that she/he has no representation. I am saying that when Congress ignores the Constitution AND ignores popular opinion, and the president harbors disdain for the Constitution AND insists on representing the interests of his nation's critics, rivals and enemies, THEN we have a serious problem on our hands.

Dan, you may agree with Obama, but because he gives voice to the concerns of this nation's rivals and enemies, he does not represent you.

CB: Time for a new Boston Tea Party.

Brooke: I agree. They're making slaves of us and of future generations.

Dan Trabue said...

but because he gives voice to the concerns of this nation's rivals and enemies, he does not represent you.

What in the world is wrong with "giving voice" to other nations?? The whole "Our way or the highway" rogue nation kind of leadership of the Reagan/Bush/Bush years is EXACTLY part of the change that people are wanting from our leaders.

We are a nation of laws and the world's greatest nation in many ways. We ought to live up to our ideals, which includes listening to others concerns.

We are not an island. We are on this earth with other nations and peoples and only a fool would choose to NOT listen to their concerns. Seems to me.

Grace Explosion said...

Great article.

DaBlade said...

that's WHY the Republicans peaked in 1994. They didn't bring spending under control, as per the contract with America, and so they were punished out of office because of it. Of course, that was penny anny compared to what this crop of dems are doing.

RightKlik said...

DT: What in the world is wrong with "giving voice" to other nations??

As president of the United States of America, it is not Obama's job to represent or express the interests or concerns of other nations. He is not an international president, he is president of the United States. For as long as Obama insists on being the self-appointed president of the world, there is no one representing the citizens of the United States of America.

What if you hired a lawyer and instead of representing YOU, he decided he ought to be "fair" and represent ALL sides. Or even worse, what if you couldn't afford a lawyer and your public defender insisted on making points in favor of the opposition?

Yes, you lawyer must listen to and pay attention to the other side, but he isn't going to voice their concerns, or recognize the validity of their points UNLESS it scores points for you in some way. That's what it means to have REPRESENTATION.

If you want to go out and represent the concerns of other nations and represent their interests, you're free to do so. Barack Obama is NOT.

GE: thanks

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

He has been in office 22 and so many of us have had it with him. Enough already!

The rhetoric alone is enough to nauseate the most patient person. I have lost my patience completely.

How will we ever make it through four -- and perhaps eight -- years of this nonsense?