Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

[EdwinWillers]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

I would urge everyone to read it this July 4th. Takes maybe all of 5 minutes: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

I would also like to point out that in the Declaration of Independence is a "list of grievances" of which I feel every American needs to be aware - and more than merely "aware" but savvy to how, in so many cases, such grievances could be legitimately ascribed to our current governmental minions.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
[consider the behind-the-scenes "Washington DC culture" in toto]
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
[consider the exact opposite that is occurring now with the virtual dissolution of our borders and the refusal of the federal government to take prudent measures to restrict immigration into this country]
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
[consider the ability of our judicial system to routinely declare laws passed by the people null and void at their whim or in total disregard of the Constitution proper]
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
[ditto]
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
[consider the massive bureaucracies of our current federal government]
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
[consider the militarization of our police forces across the nation]
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
[ditto]
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
[consider the UN and other legislative bodies our government is abdicating authority]
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
[consider the multitude of taxes, fees, penalties, and other "assessments" having been imposed upon us without our vote (consent)]
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
[consider the "fundamental transformation" currently being implemented across the board in our nation]
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
[consider the behavior of our own legislators in passing laws wholly contrary to the will of the people who elected them]
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
[goodness, where to begin here - consider the implementation of class warfare our representatives have waged against us on issues of race, wages, sexual "orientation" and etc. etc. etc. ]

 

[JumpinJack]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

I would urge everyone to read it this July 4th. Takes maybe all of 5 minutes: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

I would also like to point out that in the Declaration of Independence is a "list of grievances" of which I feel every American needs to be aware - and more than merely "aware" but savvy to how, in so many cases, such grievances could be legitimately ascribed to our current governmental minions.

I bet you're loads of fun at a July 4th barbeque.

 

[scatt]

I bet you're loads of fun at a July 4th barbeque.

He can list one grievance after each rib he eats.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I bet you're loads of fun at a July 4th barbeque.

It's just a general point - if you don't want to contextualize it to your 4th of July barbeque... don't.

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes, it does seem that the government inside the beltway behaves in similar ways to that of King George. Has the federal government replaced the Crown?

 

[ocean515]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

I would urge everyone to read it this July 4th. Takes maybe all of 5 minutes: Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

I would also like to point out that in the Declaration of Independence is a "list of grievances" of which I feel every American needs to be aware - and more than merely "aware" but savvy to how, in so many cases, such grievances could be legitimately ascribed to our current governmental minions.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

Hmmm. A claim that is remarkably appropriate today.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Yes, it does seem that the government inside the beltway behaves in similar ways to that of King George. Has the federal government replaced the Crown?

I think that if one look at the list of grievances in the Declaration they'll be surprised at how familiar and contemporary they seem.

My other point is related - independence is neither the recognition of ills needing redress nor the declaration of independence from them - but begins with the assertion (declaration) and the commitment TO redress them by parting from the agency responsible for them. It was another 6 or 7 years after we declared our independence from Britain that we actually secured it.

July 4th is a reminder to us of the requisite will and determination a nation needs to both become free and to remain free.

 

[EdwinWillers]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

Hmmm. A claim that is remarkably appropriate today.

Perhaps one of my favorite lines in the whole document. It is a statement of a people who have long endured abuse upon abuse upon abuse from their government, abuses that have piled up sufficiently and led them to declare "enough is enough!"

 

[ocean515]

Perhaps one of my favorite lines in the whole document. It is a statement of a people who have long endured abuse upon abuse upon abuse from their government, abuses that have piled up sufficiently and led them to declare "enough is enough!"

Indeed. Among other things, a line that applies to many of the government super agencies the current Administration has enhanced. The EPA and IRS come to mind...

 

[EdwinWillers]

Indeed. Among other things, a line that applies to many of the government super agencies the current Administration has enhanced. The EPA and IRS come to mind...

Oof - among scores of others...

Want an exercise? Look at this list and imagine how many government bureaucrats it takes to manage it: MBTA List of Migratory Birds

...then hope you don't own any land on which one of these birds might happen to want to regularly light.

 

[ocean515]

Oof - among scores of others...

Want an exercise? Look at this list and imagine how many government bureaucrats it takes to manage it: MBTA List of Migratory Birds

...then hope you don't own any land on which one of these birds might happen to want to regularly light.

Yes, scores of others.

Within the despotism demonstrated by the regulatory agencies, regulatory incrementalism remains ignorant of the burden previous efforts have already inflicted.

And much to the delight of liberal/progressives, the people can do little to slow the process.

Under such a reality, the words contained in the Declaration of Independence serve as a reminder of what was, and a warning of what can return.

 

[Thoreau72]

When they succeed in turning society in on itself, turning citizen against citizen on purpose, then they have succeeded.

 

[chromium]

yes and aside from the blatant racism it contains, given the course of this nation's history compared to that of britain since that time, i'm not at all convinced separation was a good thing

hopefully it's not too late to declare loyalty to her majesty

 

[Henrin]

yes and aside from the blatant racism it contains, given the course of this nation's history compared to that of britain since that time, i'm not at all convinced separation was a good thing

hopefully it's not too late to declare loyalty to her majesty

What racism?

 

[Bethlehem Bill]

of course i read it a few times in elementary school, again in high school civics, and here/there in college, but admittedly its been at least 5 years

so! thank you for the reminder, I did indeed pull up a transcript for a quick and pertinent read today.

nice to reflect on that, as i agree with some other posters, it is eerie how many parallels can be drawn to the relationship between the federal powers in DC and the state powers across the rest of the country...


all good food for thought, but today, i prefer food for my stomach - especially barbequed food. about to head off to a cookout with friends and family. burgers, dogs, chili, slaw, potato salad, ribs, and of course ice cold beer and fireworks.

may you all enjoy yourselves today. try to take at least a few hours off from politicizing things, and just enjoy this wonderful country of ours - flaws and all

cheers!

 

[matchlight]

Oof - among scores of others...

Want an exercise? Look at this list and imagine how many government bureaucrats it takes to manage it: MBTA List of Migratory Birds

...then hope you don't own any land on which one of these birds might happen to want to regularly light.

If one of those birds should happen to alight by that little rain puddle in a low spot in a homeowner's garden and splash around, then fly into the neighboring state, I think it's only fair to say that homeowner, by allowing that puddle to exist on what he arrogantly views as "his" private land, has affected a water of the United States. What do we have a Clean Water Act for, if not to prevent such transgressions against our natural resources? By all rights, the EPA should required these people to obtain grading permits--and cost be damned.

Some years ago, I was saddened to hear of the devastation greedy humans were wreaking on the poor Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. A small colony of these adorable insects was hanging on in the California desert, surviving in the pockets of water created by discarded tires and styrofoam burger boxes. The site proposed for a hospital would have destroyed the habitat of these tiny creatures, but fortunately our government rushed to the rescue. A court found it was just possible that a fly, in attempting to cross the nearby interstate highway, might at some time inadvertently become attached to a passing truck and transported across the state line. This was therefore a matter of federal law, and the federal agency involved was authorized to force the rapacious developer to spend a lot of money to change the plans for this stupid, useless hospital.

And so a special little corner for the Flower-Loving Fly was created, complete with the vital refuse, where the survivors can now live and love in harmony, unmolested by humans. I am so glad our federal government is there as the "white knight" we can count on to right all these wrongs!

 

[EdwinWillers]

If one of those birds should happen to alight by that little rain puddle in a low spot in a homeowner's garden and splash around, then fly into the neighboring state, I think it's only fair to say that homeowner, by allowing that puddle to exist on what he arrogantly views as "his" private land, has affected a water of the United States. What do we have a Clean Water Act for, if not to prevent such transgressions against our natural resources? By all rights, the EPA should required these people to obtain grading permits--and cost be damned.

Some years ago, I was saddened to hear of the devastation greedy humans were wreaking on the poor Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. A small colony of these adorable insects was hanging on in the California desert, surviving in the pockets of water created by discarded tires and styrofoam burger boxes. The site proposed for a hospital would have destroyed the habitat of these tiny creatures, but fortunately our government rushed to the rescue. A court found it was just possible that a fly, in attempting to cross the nearby interstate highway, might at some time inadvertently become attached to a passing truck and transported across the state line. This was therefore a matter of federal law, and the federal agency involved was authorized to force the rapacious developer to spend a lot of money to change the plans for this stupid, useless hospital.

And so a special little corner for the Flower-Loving Fly was created, complete with the vital refuse, where the survivors can now live and love in harmony, unmolested by humans. I am so glad our federal government is there as the "white knight" we can count on to right all these wrongs!

LOL - only bureaucrats could rationalize thus.

 

[matchlight]

LOL - only bureaucrats could rationalize thus.

Actually, it was a female federal judge. I heard one of her male colleagues discuss the case. I remember he suggested that if anyone wanted an explanation of her reasoning, they should ask her, because he could not offer any.

 

[hado117]

Democracy Does Not Equal Freedom | Dick Puddlecote

 

[hado117]

Democracy Does Not Equal Freedom | Dick Puddlecote

Paul Marks | 7 September, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
The astonishing thing is that anyone would make the mistake of confusing a form of government (democracy – direct or representative) with government does or does not do (i.e. with freedom).

If 51% (or 99%) of a group of human beings decide to burn alive everyone with red hair (or their elected representatives to do this) it is indeed an act of democracy – but it is (just as clearly) an act of tyranny.

It makes no difference if an Emperor or Sultan decides to engage in murder, robbery (or some other crime – and I mean crime in the true sense, not in the absurd legal positivist sense) or if a majority of people (or their elected representatives) decide to do so.

Yet people confuse freedom and democracy – it is a common error.

Why such a crass error is so often made is an interesting question.

 

[hado117]

Paul Marks | 7 September, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
The astonishing thing is that anyone would make the mistake of confusing a form of government (democracy – direct or representative) with government does or does not do (i.e. with freedom).

If 51% (or 99%) of a group of human beings decide to burn alive everyone with red hair (or their elected representatives to do this) it is indeed an act of democracy – but it is (just as clearly) an act of tyranny.

It makes no difference if an Emperor or Sultan decides to engage in murder, robbery (or some other crime – and I mean crime in the true sense, not in the absurd legal positivist sense) or if a majority of people (or their elected representatives) decide to do so.

Yet people confuse freedom and democracy – it is a common error.

Why such a crass error is so often made is an interesting question.

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.

 

[hado117]

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.

The Cultural Revolution itself had, as I am prone to saying, been enacted by a collection of religious cranks. That nasty piece of work Lloyd George was merely a typical example of them, with his Methodist origins. The English people had been, by that point, already transformed into a people who would tolerate, and even welcome, a State that watered down their beer. As such, liberty was already doomed.

I’m very fond of DIck’s writing and it’s a good article, but I have to say it’s a bit confused. John Reid was not ousted by democracy, but by a lack of it. Unlike in prohibition era America, there was no threat that the voters would oust an insufficiently puritan minister. There is no corresponding ability of the Puritans to mobilise churchgoers in that way. Hardly anyone would have changed their vote if the smoking ban had not occurred; voters vote on a few “big” issues- NHS, schools, etc. If the Temperance Movement were actually required to gain democratic support for their machinations, they would fail. It is because our “democracy” isn’t really a democracy at all that they can achieve goals such as the smoking ban.

Imagine, as a thought experiment, that every law had to be passed in a referendum with a requirement that it must achieve more than 50% of the electorate (not just of those who vote). How many people would have bothered to haul themselves down to a polling station to vote for the smoking ban? Not half the population, I would wager.

The clever achievement of the radicals was to ensure that we had a parliametary system which is democratic in name only. It has been machined so that it consults “the public will” as minimally as possible, thus allowing its domination by minorities of crankish campaigners who circulate in the same class as the politicians and thus gain a much louder voice than “the young single mother on a sink estate who likes a cigarette”.

It’s hard to blame democracy, when there is no democracy to speak of.

w

 

[Paperview]

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman......Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence.
....

It sure was different here - from before the Dec of Ind was signed, and after, for quite a few decades after.

Just my two little cents...

 

[hado117]

It sure was different here - from before the Dec of Ind was signed, and after, for quite a few decades after.

Just my two little cents...

at the time of the american revolution 1/3 of the people were against rebellion. 1/3 supported it. and 1/3 didnt give a **** one way or the other.

 

[Paperview]

at the time of the american revolution 1/3 of the people were against rebellion. 1/3 supported it. and 1/3 didnt give a **** one way or the other.

Beside the fact of that being a fallacy, it really doesn't have anything to do with my commentary.