Seditious Statements
I've wondered from time to time whether it's really acceptable for "We the People" to really call ourselves such anymore and in point of fact, I'm quite sure that some of the statements I'm about to make could be considered seditious but I guess that's just a chance I'm going to have to take. I love America, please don't misunderstand me. This is my home and has always been my home though some of the things that I've begun to realize make me question the validity and the viability of our governing body, namely us. Did we forget that one little fact? That we are in truth, the makers of our own collective destiny as applies to our government?
Have we forgotten the Declaration of Independence in our preoccupation or more specifically, lines in the Declaration that not only give "the governed" the RIGHT to consent to the laws written and enacted by "the governing" because they have in truth been placed in a position of authority by our own consent? Aside from the idea that the governing party placed in the position of authority is supposed to be for no other purpose than to secure the rights of the governed. Read the second paragraph if you don't believe me where it says verbatim, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and while you're at it take a look at the rest of the second paragraph because I'm going to reference it frequently. Does anyone think that that was a pretty turn of phrase or that it was added on a whim? Or could it have been more to the point that it was a statement made at a time when American Colonists were unhappy with the distant and unresponsive monarchy and sought a voice for their best interests?
Does anyone truly believe that it was an easy decision to make for the colonists to declare independence from the monarchy? The colonists had to have known that in the declaring that they were independent they would then have caused a call to military action from the monarchy but in the end, liberty was more important to them than even their very lives. Being a whole group of wealthy white men (for lack of a better description) that were ultimately trying not to pay taxes, they had to have understood what the consequences of their actions would be and yet they persisted. Why does anyone think that is? Would it not have been just easier to pay the outrageous taxes and suffer in silence, as it were? Perhaps to them was it more worth it to make the necessary sacrifices for the sake of their malcontent and suffer and sacrifice they did. Children were called to arms and young men died and all for the sake of a vision of a better life. Does anyone think that the colonists did not understand that should they have lost the Revolutionary War that the consequences of their actions would likely be of a brutal and oppressive nature? I have to say that I believe that our forefathers knew what they were doing when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and they also knew what the possible consequences of their actions could be should the colonists have found themselves the losers in the ensuing bloody conflict and they were prepared to take that gamble. Keeping all this in mind, I have to assume that "the governed" no longer gave their consent to BE governed and stated as such.
They then chose to abolish their current government as is also written as a RIGHT in the Declaration: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Is it not the opinion of many Americans now that we have a problem with a bastardization of the principles on which this very country was founded? Are words written a few centuries ago any less applicable now than they were then?
Don't get me wrong, that one paragraph cautions against imprudent action for "light or transient causes" though it also cautions against becoming complacent with something with which people are familiar. Hence the line, "and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." However, it also states in the very next sentence that it is the right and DUTY of the people to abolish that Government should it become abusive and intolerable to quote, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
These quotes are all the words of the founding fathers of the United States, ladies and gentlemen and I have every confidence that they were neither penned lightly nor taken lightly by the recipient, hence the Revolutionary War.
If there are a few underlying themes I've noticed under all the dissatisfaction of the loudly protesting American people, they are these; misspent taxes and the cavalier attitude of our governing body. There are so many taxes to pay, insane amounts of taxes for frivolous things for example a "death tax" or a "gift tax." I really don't even think that the taxes themselves are what upset people the most because I honestly think it's the percentage that's taken. Don't get me wrong, I really think that should anyone have seen examples of these "tax dollars hard at work" they would not be nearly so inclined to be angry or suspicious but the infrastructure of America is crumbling and costs are exorbitant while the government faces little or no accountability for its spending. Why is it okay for the governing body to consistently vote to raise their own pay while the millions of American people face a day to day struggle to pay the bills and put food on the table? Why is it okay for congressmen and women and senators and even the president to take multimillion dollar vacations to exotic locations on the tab of the American people while the people are suffering through a fiscally painful economic recession in which food, housing, energy and transportation costs have soared?
Currently, the salary of the President of the United States is $400,000 including an expense allowance of $50,000 which is utterly ridiculous. I wish I could get an expense allowance though I think that that's out of the question though it does beg the question; when did the people approve a 100% pay raise for the president as it was changed from $200,000 in 2001. Truthfully, I've estimated almost $99 million American tax dollars get spent annually on the salaries of the most basic part of the governing body which would be the President and his Cabinet, Representatives in the House and Senators as well as the Supreme Court Justices. Why is that fair or right when the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour fully effective in 2009 and didn't budge before that for somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty years? Pardon me for being perfectly blunt but I happen to think that the American governing body could realistically do the governing that they're supposed to be doing by the CONSENT of the American people with less than half of what they're paid now and I consider the greed of the American government nothing less than a breach of trust. The American people TRUST the government to govern "We the People" with integrity, discipline, understanding and above all a desire to do what's RIGHT for the people as a whole and I believe that the utter lack of action among the government constitutes laziness and a violation of the trust of the people. Then again, I also believe that even though the people are aware of the violation of their trust about the expenditures of the government, they are also somewhat ambivalent and don't really do anything about it. More the fools we are.
I had also mentioned earlier the cavalier attitude of the governing body so I ask you this now; when was the consent of the American people obtained when the Patriot Act made it not only possible but also completely legal for law enforcement to brand a person a terrorist for virtually any reason and then subsequently take away all of their rights and arrest and detain them indefinitely without charging them or giving them a trial? This is something that I would call an arbitrary and unilateral control play and I can tell you right now, I think it's also a vulgar show of power and I ask this; did it really take President Obama this long (about a decade) to let most of that hateful and paranoid bill go? Why? I remember getting the sketchiest of details in regards to the actual wording of the Patriot Act and before I knew it, it was law despite the protests of the people. If that's not unilateral or arbitrary decision making, I don't know what is. I would think that the overwhelming opposition of the people would have dissuaded such drastic measures, but the government lived down to the expectations of the people. And while we're at it, how many people were terribly happy about the "Internet Kill Switch"? Last I knew, it wasn't well received among any but the government and I have to say honestly, it somewhat reminds me of the numerous examples through out history of hopelessly insane monarchs or emperors who were terribly paranoid about what their subjects thought of them and history bears the bloody details. Something like that never ended well, if memory serves me correctly.
The long and short of it? Do I believe that the United States government should be abolished? No, I believe it needs to be altered because we are standing on the precipice of the end of the patience of the American people. After repeated mistreating and abuse and violations of trust, I believe that "We the People" have become disenchanted and disillusioned with the course of the current system of government and increasingly discontented with the direction our governing body seems to be headed. To alter the currently established system would be vastly preferable no matter the circumstances because quite frankly, to abolish the current system would mean exactly the same thing that it's always meant: revolution. Revolution is never quick or painless, the details are written in blood across history and for those people out there who talk about revolution, consider this; are you prepared and willing to fight and die for your revolution? Are you prepared to sacrifice your children, your sons and daughters and husbands and wives? Because in the end that's what will happen and those who support revolution are likely not thinking of the ramifications of the invariably bloody ensuing conflict, anger tends to be blind and never does think of what can go wrong. I believe that the American governing body, under the insistence of "We the People" should have to undergo an extensive and probably exhausting overhaul or alteration to change the current state of affairs.
And while I'm at it, I'd like to issue a challenge of sorts to all Americans regardless of race or creed. We as a people agreed to be governed by those to whom we gave our CONSENT which means we made the CHOICE to be governed by those that govern us now. Just like a parent can give or revoke consent with or without reason based upon what's best for a child, does that not also mean that those who choose to be governed also give their leave to be governed? The American people have made some poor choices about whom we allow to hold public office and should we truly decide that that needs to change, then "We the People" need to take that initiative or stop whining about political corruption and despotism. If we're going to make noise and be angry or disapproving about the way our tax dollars are spent or the cavalier attitude of the governing body or even any part of the government that's causing civil unrest or discontent, then we need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! In my opinion, anything less constitutes the same cavalier laziness which angers us when it comes from the politicians and I don't believe that it's fair or right to condemn one specific group of people for things of which we are all guilty. If it's permissible for the people to be ambivalent then the attitudes of the governing body will reflect that ambivalence and they will behave accordingly. In truth, "We the People" need to put up or shut up.
Related articlesIndependance Hall for Kids (socyberty.com)
The Declaration Of Independence: Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness (roninsjourney.wordpress.com)
Liberty Counsel's Faux Declaration of Independence [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
Manifesto: A European Declaration Of Independence...(WND) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
A critique of the Declaration of Independence. (circleh.wordpress.com)
Discussion Question # 2 (lepleyandhistory.wordpress.com)
July 4, Lest We forget. (brotherbogie.wordpress.com)
Declaration of Independence; My Way Or The Highway (roninsjourney.wordpress.com)
Founding Documents: Left and Right (standathwart.wordpress.com)
""A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." - Declaration of Independence (via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
Have we forgotten the Declaration of Independence in our preoccupation or more specifically, lines in the Declaration that not only give "the governed" the RIGHT to consent to the laws written and enacted by "the governing" because they have in truth been placed in a position of authority by our own consent? Aside from the idea that the governing party placed in the position of authority is supposed to be for no other purpose than to secure the rights of the governed. Read the second paragraph if you don't believe me where it says verbatim, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and while you're at it take a look at the rest of the second paragraph because I'm going to reference it frequently. Does anyone think that that was a pretty turn of phrase or that it was added on a whim? Or could it have been more to the point that it was a statement made at a time when American Colonists were unhappy with the distant and unresponsive monarchy and sought a voice for their best interests?
Does anyone truly believe that it was an easy decision to make for the colonists to declare independence from the monarchy? The colonists had to have known that in the declaring that they were independent they would then have caused a call to military action from the monarchy but in the end, liberty was more important to them than even their very lives. Being a whole group of wealthy white men (for lack of a better description) that were ultimately trying not to pay taxes, they had to have understood what the consequences of their actions would be and yet they persisted. Why does anyone think that is? Would it not have been just easier to pay the outrageous taxes and suffer in silence, as it were? Perhaps to them was it more worth it to make the necessary sacrifices for the sake of their malcontent and suffer and sacrifice they did. Children were called to arms and young men died and all for the sake of a vision of a better life. Does anyone think that the colonists did not understand that should they have lost the Revolutionary War that the consequences of their actions would likely be of a brutal and oppressive nature? I have to say that I believe that our forefathers knew what they were doing when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and they also knew what the possible consequences of their actions could be should the colonists have found themselves the losers in the ensuing bloody conflict and they were prepared to take that gamble. Keeping all this in mind, I have to assume that "the governed" no longer gave their consent to BE governed and stated as such.
They then chose to abolish their current government as is also written as a RIGHT in the Declaration: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Is it not the opinion of many Americans now that we have a problem with a bastardization of the principles on which this very country was founded? Are words written a few centuries ago any less applicable now than they were then?
Don't get me wrong, that one paragraph cautions against imprudent action for "light or transient causes" though it also cautions against becoming complacent with something with which people are familiar. Hence the line, "and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." However, it also states in the very next sentence that it is the right and DUTY of the people to abolish that Government should it become abusive and intolerable to quote, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
These quotes are all the words of the founding fathers of the United States, ladies and gentlemen and I have every confidence that they were neither penned lightly nor taken lightly by the recipient, hence the Revolutionary War.
If there are a few underlying themes I've noticed under all the dissatisfaction of the loudly protesting American people, they are these; misspent taxes and the cavalier attitude of our governing body. There are so many taxes to pay, insane amounts of taxes for frivolous things for example a "death tax" or a "gift tax." I really don't even think that the taxes themselves are what upset people the most because I honestly think it's the percentage that's taken. Don't get me wrong, I really think that should anyone have seen examples of these "tax dollars hard at work" they would not be nearly so inclined to be angry or suspicious but the infrastructure of America is crumbling and costs are exorbitant while the government faces little or no accountability for its spending. Why is it okay for the governing body to consistently vote to raise their own pay while the millions of American people face a day to day struggle to pay the bills and put food on the table? Why is it okay for congressmen and women and senators and even the president to take multimillion dollar vacations to exotic locations on the tab of the American people while the people are suffering through a fiscally painful economic recession in which food, housing, energy and transportation costs have soared?
Currently, the salary of the President of the United States is $400,000 including an expense allowance of $50,000 which is utterly ridiculous. I wish I could get an expense allowance though I think that that's out of the question though it does beg the question; when did the people approve a 100% pay raise for the president as it was changed from $200,000 in 2001. Truthfully, I've estimated almost $99 million American tax dollars get spent annually on the salaries of the most basic part of the governing body which would be the President and his Cabinet, Representatives in the House and Senators as well as the Supreme Court Justices. Why is that fair or right when the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour fully effective in 2009 and didn't budge before that for somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty years? Pardon me for being perfectly blunt but I happen to think that the American governing body could realistically do the governing that they're supposed to be doing by the CONSENT of the American people with less than half of what they're paid now and I consider the greed of the American government nothing less than a breach of trust. The American people TRUST the government to govern "We the People" with integrity, discipline, understanding and above all a desire to do what's RIGHT for the people as a whole and I believe that the utter lack of action among the government constitutes laziness and a violation of the trust of the people. Then again, I also believe that even though the people are aware of the violation of their trust about the expenditures of the government, they are also somewhat ambivalent and don't really do anything about it. More the fools we are.
I had also mentioned earlier the cavalier attitude of the governing body so I ask you this now; when was the consent of the American people obtained when the Patriot Act made it not only possible but also completely legal for law enforcement to brand a person a terrorist for virtually any reason and then subsequently take away all of their rights and arrest and detain them indefinitely without charging them or giving them a trial? This is something that I would call an arbitrary and unilateral control play and I can tell you right now, I think it's also a vulgar show of power and I ask this; did it really take President Obama this long (about a decade) to let most of that hateful and paranoid bill go? Why? I remember getting the sketchiest of details in regards to the actual wording of the Patriot Act and before I knew it, it was law despite the protests of the people. If that's not unilateral or arbitrary decision making, I don't know what is. I would think that the overwhelming opposition of the people would have dissuaded such drastic measures, but the government lived down to the expectations of the people. And while we're at it, how many people were terribly happy about the "Internet Kill Switch"? Last I knew, it wasn't well received among any but the government and I have to say honestly, it somewhat reminds me of the numerous examples through out history of hopelessly insane monarchs or emperors who were terribly paranoid about what their subjects thought of them and history bears the bloody details. Something like that never ended well, if memory serves me correctly.
The long and short of it? Do I believe that the United States government should be abolished? No, I believe it needs to be altered because we are standing on the precipice of the end of the patience of the American people. After repeated mistreating and abuse and violations of trust, I believe that "We the People" have become disenchanted and disillusioned with the course of the current system of government and increasingly discontented with the direction our governing body seems to be headed. To alter the currently established system would be vastly preferable no matter the circumstances because quite frankly, to abolish the current system would mean exactly the same thing that it's always meant: revolution. Revolution is never quick or painless, the details are written in blood across history and for those people out there who talk about revolution, consider this; are you prepared and willing to fight and die for your revolution? Are you prepared to sacrifice your children, your sons and daughters and husbands and wives? Because in the end that's what will happen and those who support revolution are likely not thinking of the ramifications of the invariably bloody ensuing conflict, anger tends to be blind and never does think of what can go wrong. I believe that the American governing body, under the insistence of "We the People" should have to undergo an extensive and probably exhausting overhaul or alteration to change the current state of affairs.
And while I'm at it, I'd like to issue a challenge of sorts to all Americans regardless of race or creed. We as a people agreed to be governed by those to whom we gave our CONSENT which means we made the CHOICE to be governed by those that govern us now. Just like a parent can give or revoke consent with or without reason based upon what's best for a child, does that not also mean that those who choose to be governed also give their leave to be governed? The American people have made some poor choices about whom we allow to hold public office and should we truly decide that that needs to change, then "We the People" need to take that initiative or stop whining about political corruption and despotism. If we're going to make noise and be angry or disapproving about the way our tax dollars are spent or the cavalier attitude of the governing body or even any part of the government that's causing civil unrest or discontent, then we need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! In my opinion, anything less constitutes the same cavalier laziness which angers us when it comes from the politicians and I don't believe that it's fair or right to condemn one specific group of people for things of which we are all guilty. If it's permissible for the people to be ambivalent then the attitudes of the governing body will reflect that ambivalence and they will behave accordingly. In truth, "We the People" need to put up or shut up.
Related articlesIndependance Hall for Kids (socyberty.com)
The Declaration Of Independence: Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness (roninsjourney.wordpress.com)
Liberty Counsel's Faux Declaration of Independence [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
Manifesto: A European Declaration Of Independence...(WND) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
A critique of the Declaration of Independence. (circleh.wordpress.com)
Discussion Question # 2 (lepleyandhistory.wordpress.com)
July 4, Lest We forget. (brotherbogie.wordpress.com)
Declaration of Independence; My Way Or The Highway (roninsjourney.wordpress.com)
Founding Documents: Left and Right (standathwart.wordpress.com)
""A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." - Declaration of Independence (via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
No comments have been added yet.
