It struck me as I was reading the list that His Majesty's transgressions were many times more minor than that inflicted on the American people by the current United States Government (USG). Just off the top of my head, I can come up with five serious abuses by USG.
-- They have conspired with monied interests to allow de facto open borders, inflicting on the people a massive, unprecedented foreign wave of settlement, for the purpose of lowering the cost of labor and creating a class of persons wholly dependent on government;Etc. etc. One could go on and on and on. Given this, are we, or are we not, in a revolutionary situation?
-- They have engaged in wars for purely political purposes without the express approval of the representative of the American people;
-- They have raided the public purse to "bail out" powerful interests, effectively socializing the powerful's losses, forcing the people to subsidize their masters;
-- They have used the public's tax money to create and prop up a criminal Muslim regime in the heart of Europe, without seeking approval or even explaining how such an action was in the American people's interests; and
-- They have declared the ethnicity of the founding stock and majority of the American people to be oppressive by nature, and have supported a system of education that considers the people's entire history prior to 1965 to be nothing more than a litany of crime....
Views, please.
You should go on and on. Because you are correct in every particular cited so far, and there are still many others.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we're in a revolutionary situation, because people don't care enough to revolt. The government's done a good job of boiling the frog, as they say.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that many of the Supreme Court's rulings that "err" on the side of safety would horrify the Founders. I think that they are worse than what caused the Revolution, as well. TSA, for example - as you all know the one I rant the most against. I think the things done by TSA and Homeland Security for the purposes of "security" infringe on every personal freedom granted by our Creator and recognized in the Constitution (an important distinction, I think, as if the freedoms are granted by the Constitution, they can be taken away. If they are merely recognized, it means that those freedoms are intrinsically ours). Janet Napolitano's stupid "Well then don't fly!" quote enrages me. I'm sorry, Madame Secretary, but I don't have a choice. Nor do the thousands of military families that have to move OCONUS every year.
Another current issue we're struggling with are dog breed bans - there are airlines we can't use to move overseas because a "sight inspection" shows our dogs are "Pit Bulls. Truly, I do refer to them that way sometimes, as saying "Staffodshire Bull Terrier" sounds pretentious, but SBT's are NOT on the banned list, and my dogs have been DNA tested to show what they are (Mamie is actually Boston Terrier+Pointer). These bans are also in municipalities, and govern where we can move. In Denver, they have seized dogs from owners, in more than one case owners just passing through, based on "sight identification". The dogs are put to sleep.
That is a willful deprivation of property without due process, and yet it is condoned legally. In the case of Denver, the state of Colorado passed legislation making breed bans illegal (referring instead to "dangerous dogs" which can be of any breed), and Denver has refused to recognize this and continued with the breed ban they have in effect.
And that's not even getting into the ridiculousness that is the public school system, which has decided it should take over parenting from parents and has encroached so much that homeschooling is still illegal in two states (that I know of) - rather it is so heavily regulated that it is in effect illegal. It is also heavily regulated in a large number of states which demand homeschooling families uphold standards far and above those the schools must uphold or risk having their children seized by social services.
OH! *AND* before moving, we have to consent to having a city inspection of our home, since we will be renting it out. This is basically a kickback program for some favored local contractor. I'm pretty sure no one gets out without having something that is not up to standard. For instance, "incidences of cracked or peeling paint on the outdoor surfaces of the house". There does not need to be a complaint for this, no one has to report substandard living conditions, no one has to report landlord malfeasance. It is assumed the landlord is acting in an illegal manner and that the property needs to be inspected prior to renting.
And this, of course, is all considered legal.
I hate it. All of it. And I don't think I'm an unreasonable person. In fact, the blood of career bureaucrats runs heavily through my veins. One would think I would be the last to complain. Instead I'm finding that others go along with this as legitimate and acceptable.
I don't understand. I truly don't.
Hopefully I'll have time to comment later but wrt to Jourdan's third point - apparently Sheila Bair (former FDIC chair) got a few martini's in her and posted an op-ed at the Washington Post. It's really hilarious! I'm surprised - this is a woman who was _there_ in the heat of the financial crisis, and her op-ed implicitly ridicules Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner. Obviously Bair no longer cares whether she works in NY or Washington ever again. Good for her!
ReplyDeleteHilarious is understatement. I loved it.
DeleteNow, off to apply for my $10 Million loan :D
Absolutely brilliant! Hah!
DeleteExcellent writing, Jourdan (and afw as well). I'm in total agreement with you both. I think that we really are starting to see reaction from the silent majority of hard-working, average Americans who have had enough of govt. intrusion and oppression (afw, the TSA just infuriates me as well).
ReplyDeleteWhat is the criminal Muslim regime in the heart of Europe?
On a personal note, I had no idea you had children, Jourdan. Nice to know you're a dad.
I want to think about this m,ore before extensive comment...mainly because it seems too easy for me to agree with it.
ReplyDeleteI do think revolution, electoral or violent, is possible, and that those who don't care will be by-passed and potentially trampled. The old adage about "where's there's smoke there's fire" is applicable. The smoke is nearing a signal status and bits of flame (threats of violence) can be observed licking about the heels of the populace ... via threats (including death) by minority groups against the white majority. If the kill whitey meme persists it will set back all progress in the past 60 years to 100 years ago.
I agree with you aridog. Everyone is getting restless and thoroughly fed up and disgusted. Even the liberals are realizing they've been snookered.
DeleteRegrettably, it only takes one match or even just a hot spark to ignite a conflagration. We've already had our defined here, by Malik Shabazz who has declared if the state should ever try to take over Detroit due to bankruptcy, that "they" will burn it down.
DeleteGiven how the Nation of Islam began here, how the black nationalists first killed a police officer here (and seriously wounded a friend of mine)with rifles carried outside the church they met in which is why the police drove up to see WTF based upon a call from the neighborhood and got ambushed), and the riot we had in 1967 where 97% of the damage was to the black neighborhoods...an event we've not yet fully recovered from to this day. Yes, white men like Mike IIitch, Henry Ford II, Max Fisher, Pete Karmanos, Dan Gilbert, et all, including successful black business man Dave Bing, who left retirement in Franklin Hills to become Mayor where he's not appreciated one whit. If the riots return every bit of that slow but sure progress will vanish ... and I will sleeping, armed to the teeth, at my daughter's expensive loft (refurbished by Gilbert's company) on Woodward Avenue in order to help protect her.
I'm not positive it will go ape-shit, but from past experience I know that it CAN go there in a blink of an eye. I was in the city for the first one, will be again if necessary. This is my home and I'm not inclined to run. Leaders like Shabazz and Farakan are full of hate and can be that spark.
Somewhat related .... the Discovery Channel on cable has been running a series on moonshining. The last episode covered a guy who wants to go legitimate (as some others have done) and make legal booze to sell. I was struck by a requirement in 27 CFR (federal regs) for a $200,000 "Bond" be posted before he can go legit. Because the bond requires substantial payment by the bonded party, the guy is doubling his illegal production to make the money to go legit.
ReplyDeleteAs "Pogo" famously said: "I've seen the enemy, and it is us." Seems applicable to this situation to me. Liquor taxation has been integral to the federal tax system since the revolution ... so why is it so hard to become a liquor tax payer?
Jourdan, it heartens me to know that you, and so many other parents, are teaching their children about our Declaration of Independence and the meaning of liberty.
ReplyDeleteI've gone from being repulsed and nauseated at the direction our country has taken to being mad. Damn mad.
Thanks for the well-written and thoughtful post.
Pssst ... I think we owe Jourdan a round of applause for his remarkable ability to post provocative thought inducing commentary. This is what I meant when I said much earlier, after his regular return, that I'd missed him. Evewn if I agree or not, it's worthwhile ... and provides another foil to joust with besides Lewy, also known to provoke now and then ... cleverly moderated in a "Zen" sort of way :D
ReplyDeleteso why is it so hard to become a liquor tax payer?
ReplyDeleteBecause existing liquor tax payer - i.e. current producers - like it that way.
You've been reading about the "fight" in Michigan over the monopoly of government alcohol sales & distribution, with "chosen" (crony) distributors for beer & wine, eh? :D
DeleteMany of us would like to see the Michigan system turned in to ordinary distribution system where the state doesn't control what comes in and who can sell it wholesale. For example, if I drive to Chicago or New York, or lived in a open state, I could buy any cognac made anywhere if imported to the USA. For example, "Camus", a delightful brew with delicate pungency and a price similar to the high end VSOP's and XO's. Not here. No good reason except that the state determines they can't sell enough of it, yet NY and Il manage just fine....at prices near 1/3+ less than ours to boot. Michigan still prohibits mail order sales from out of state, unless they changed it very recently ... e.g., I can't order from NYC or Chicago....both who have booming mail order business in booze.
We have a "gap" between high end "XO's" (around $200 a fifth) and the obscenely priced "rare" cognacs, like Remy's Louis XIII Black Pearl ($1700a fifth)
The state reaps taxes at least twice, first with the 65% mark-up they apply to the wholesale price, then the 6% sales/use tax they apply to sales, by the bottle or the drink. Who knows how much gets handed over to commissioners in fat envelopes?
This system is a left over from the early post-prohibition days when the state politicians didn't want to alienate the anti-drinking crowd, even if they had to accept the end of prohibition. So they set up a system that made them money twice over, and in some minds, favored the remnants of the gang that controlled it all during prohibition.
Agggghhhhh.
PS: I presume the meaning of your reply was the old adage: "Follow the money." I agree, that's illuminating.