The American Spectator : Our First Salutary Tax Revolt

Text Size

Our First Salutary Tax Revolt

By Roger Kaplan on 7.1.11 @ 6:09AM

All that was needed was cultural tradition that made any thing less than self-government feel like oppression and tyranny.

John Adams referred to July 2, 1776 as a day of Deliverance which a grateful people ought to observe by showing their devotion to God. This was because the Continental Congress declared the 13 Colonies independent on that day. However, the Declaration written by Thomas Jefferson was approved and signed two days later, and the publicity that it deservedly received determined that the Fourth, rather than the Second, would be the date universally remembered.

Adams, who died on July 4, 1827, as did his political rival and great friend Thomas Jefferson, had in mind deliverance from tyranny. There was no need for him to specify the types of oppression against which he had gone into rebellion; they were known, debated throughout the Colonies; the Declaration catalogued them in careful detail, as befit the founding document of a nation of lawyers, or rather a nation committed to respect for the rule of law, which is not necessarily the same. What we must remember is that in its origins and in some ways in its deepest political meaning, the American Revolution was a tax revolt.

From the earliest years of the Great Republic, many Americans — not John Adams — have indulged a certain pride, by no means unattractive but arguably misconceived, about the universalist claims of the Declaration, beginning of course with the famous line about equality. We are happy when an African or a European refers to the founding document as an inspiration to all. No doubt there are Africans and Europeans who partake of the classical liberal underpinnings of the Founders’ ideas. Rare are the instances, however, when their positions or parties prevailed during an upheaval in their countries.

The historical evidence suggests that when an African or a European has gone into revolution mode, it has been in pursuit of aims that are anything but classically liberal or universalist. They have gone after their religious or tribal enemies (national as the Europeans usually say, Croats, Serbs, Flemish, Walloons); class became a mobilizing entity in the 19th and 20th centuries, although at showdown time group solidarity always trumped class — Slav over Teuton in the clash between Russia and Germany for control of central Europe, and, internally, Georgian over Jew for control of the Soviet communist apparatus.

The American Revolution was a quarrel among people whose mutual dislikes may well have included various levels of religious or national resentments, but for the most part they not only were of the same stock, but of a shared political culture.

The Stamp Acts and duties on tea that the British government imposed from afar from the 1760s onward were not symptoms of a deep hatred and mistrust between the center and periphery of the English-speaking world; they were not flash points for anger swelling up from deeper causes. The taxes — illegal in the English tradition, according to the Colonists, since they violated the rights of free Englishmen to make their own fiscal rules through representatives in Parliament — were themselves the specific issue on which the Colonists staked their lives and their honor. They would not be browbeaten or oppressed or enslaved, they would not be taxed.

They would not be hijacked and mugged to serve ends about which they had not been consulted. And the Crown knew what they were saying; but it needed the money.

It is remarkable, but the Revolution really was, in this sense, a misunderstanding: had George III and his ministers been more respectful of their own national customs — had they been, Edmund Burke might have said, more conservative — the whole disagreeable episode might have been averted. It is worth recalling, as we commemorate the tenacity of the founding generation and its pride in its liberties, that in terms of casualties-to-population, the War of Independence was the bloodiest in American history, the north-south conflict excepted.

However, it does seem important to keep transmitting, from one generation to the next, that the Revolution was in an essential sense a revolution within the liberal political tradition, not against it or outside it, as almost all other political upheavals have been and still are. And one reason to keep transmitting this is that even within our own history, the appeal to go outside the liberal tradition, raising banners other than the flag of liberty, rarely fails to tempt political and social passions.

When we say that freedom is not free, we mean it must be defended, with ideas and treasure and even blood; it must be transmitted, the values and customs that insure its success must be taught, which comes at a cost. The rationale for the expense of public education always includes the notion that an uneducated citizenry will not defend a free society.

To pay taxes, to vote, to be drafted are the rights of free men, which makes them obligations. What I have a right to do, I should do, for it is part of my identity as a member of a nation. The American colonists understood this very well. To be told to pay taxes, to be given a governor, to be ordered to support the troops (the Quartering Acts), these were the very opposite of rights. You did not need, as you still do not, a degree in political science or law to grasp this; you needed a cultural tradition that made any thing less than self-government feel like oppression and tyranny.

The quarrel over taxes, the arguments about liberty and tyranny, were well understood on both sides of the ocean. There were Colonists who thought that, all things considered, it might be better to let the Crown claim some unsavory privileges for the sake of preserving order and peace. On the other side, William Pitt defended the liberties of the Colonists against Lord Grenville. The Stamp Act was never enforced, other tax measures were repealed. But the British Empire was in a period of over-reach; it could not sustain its policy goals; or perhaps one should say, the Crown did not have the patience to build a consensus for them and acquire broad consent from its subjects.

This crisis hits any government whose legitimacy is based on respect for liberty, from which the rights and dignity of citizens are derived. The American government, in the past two and nearly a quarter centuries, often frayed this legitimacy. The unrelenting growth of government made this inevitable. We have been spared revolutions — Jefferson mused they might be salutary from time to time — because our common sense, reinforced by the transmission of our history — something our schools are not doing very well nowadays — reminds us to honor the line between the arrogance of power and respect for individual authority.

When individual authority is widely perceived to be lost to authorities to whom it was only lent by way of elected representatives, government begins losing its legitimacy. It is difficult, in the heat of a crisis, to pinpoint the moment at which a point is passed beyond which it is impossible to return to generalized consensus on how to run current affairs. Though fighting had been taking place for the better part of a year — there was a war on — George III still did not quite get it in that first week of July. (The same sort of befuddlement, albeit against a quite different historical background, struck the King of France about 15 years later, when he was informed the Bastille fortress had fallen to insurgents. “What is this, a revolt?” he asked. “No, Sire, it’s a revolution.”)

In way, it can be said that nothing better shows the vibrancy of American freedom as a living, pulsating, practical concept for the organization of human society than our periodic tax revolts. That those who govern us are wary of Tea Partiers, Prop 13 men, outside-the-Beltway candidates, and others who, sometimes with some haziness around the edges but usually with a very clear and coherent focus on doing away with unapproved taxes for unapproved government purposes, shows that they know enough to fear the consequences of emulating George III.

About the Author

Roger Kaplan, a Washington-based writer, covers the Middle East and Africa (and tennis) for The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (118) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Handy| 7.1.11 @ 7:22AM

A thoughtful piece, but not cogent.

The "right" to be drafted is something free men enjoy? To pay taxes is a "right" that free men enjoy?

Sorry, Mr. Kaplan, the Declaration was about much, much more than mere taxes and conscription. It was a universal declaration of individual rights, applicable to everyone, everywhere. Read the particulars in paragraphs 3 through 31.

For you to categorize it as merely a tax revolt is obscene.

Have a lousy 4th. Hope you choke on a bratwurst.

lydia | 7.1.11 @ 8:28AM

I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
It was probably a typo but for the record Adams and Jefferson died 4 July 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration.

buckeyeman| 7.1.11 @ 9:23AM

"...for the record Adams and Jefferson died 4 July 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration."

Wow, you're right. I'm going to visit your cleverly camouflaged(not) website right away. So how much do you make doing this stuff?

buckeyeman| 7.1.11 @ 9:27AM

Wait just a cotton pickin' minute. I just figured out that you stole the last sentence from another poster. So now I'm NOT going to visit your website.

Ps., Is there an administrator on this site???????

Bill| 7.1.11 @ 10:01AM

I too am a 28-year-old beautiful doctor. I am looking for other women who are beautiful doctors to perform some business for money, and that's why I believe paying taxes is patriotic.

Anthony Weiner| 7.1.11 @ 10:49AM

Lydia: Please post your phone # and I will call you...How much do you charge?

The Clintidote| 7.15.11 @ 10:54PM

I bet if you bring your wife along, you and Lydia could both get a huma.

W J Clinton | 7.1.11 @ 11:19AM

Say there, this Lydia gal sounds pretty hot. Any of you guys had "experience" with her? Remember, I don't go for flat-chested women. Know what I mean?

The Clintidote| 7.15.11 @ 10:53PM

I want to not have sex with that woman when you're done with her, Sleazy Billy.

Arizona Bob| 7.1.11 @ 6:36PM

Bratwurst -- what a capital idea, old chump, super! Enjoy the prunes, Mr. H., must eat a lot of 'em where you're coming from.

Clint| 7.1.11 @ 7:25AM

Taxed Enough Already.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up.

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 8:03AM

Your full of it. We are the least taxed we have been in 60 years (you can google that). The fact we have much of a deficit at all is mainly from 2 factors - 1) Bush tax cuts that were passed at a time of surplus, which were never rescinded when it became clear there was no surplus to return (This according to Reagan and Bush appointee Alan Greenspan) , and 2) unpaid for liabilities (2 wars and drug entitlement program) which doubled our national debt under Baby Bush. Without those 2 things, our economy could have weathered the financial shocks that the Wall Street fiasco caused us in 2008 much more easily.
As far as the Revolutionary War is concerned, "taxation without representation" was the impetus for Independence because it was the landed, wealthy and businessmen most affected by the Stamp Acts, the Tea Act, etc. that cut into profits and the feeling that Americans were considered second class citizens to the British.
The first, "taxation without representation" is no longer true and hasn't been for well over 200 years (whether you like taxes or not, you are represented), and the second has come more slowly but surely through the Emancipation Proclamation, the 14th and 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, Repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", and The Lily Ledbetter Act - but not entirely there yet where no American feels like a second class citizen.

Clint| 7.1.11 @ 8:25AM

Ya mean Big FED "Housing Bubble" Greenspan, ObamaBoy.

Do Your Homework.

"Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush."

" If the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury can prioritize interest and debt payment to avoid a default and essentially put the government on a stringent pay-as-you-go basis. Would that involve extreme cuts in government spending? Certainly. But it could be done, if it had to.

Let's remember that the Treasury still rakes in quite a bit of money in revenues — it took in $604 billion (seasonally adjusted) in the third quarter of 2010. In FY 2010 the annual debt service was some $414 billion, working out to an average of about $104 billion per quarter. Although the numbers won't be quite the same going forward, the debt service will soak up only about one-sixth of the incoming revenues."

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 1:53PM

How stupid. Bush left Obama with 780,000 jobs being lost (lost tax revenue to0) and a 1.3 Trillion deficit as Obama came into office. The previous president's budget carries over the first year of a new president, ya know. Now, to reverse course on such a decline isn't done overnite, but maybe if the Republicans wouldn't fight at every turn, we could have tax reform similar to what Republican Sen Alan Simpson proposes (Google it) .
As far as the debt ceiling - who are you not going to pay - Congress should be first IMHO. But then who? Grandma? Hospitals? Veterans? Active Duty Military? Schools? Doctors?
Congress needs to raise the ceiling and devise a reasonable (no new taxes is ridiculous in time of war) deficit reduction package. In any case, now is not the time to cut spending while too many are out of work. Simply cutting spending might make you feel good, but it cuts JOBS. Where do you think the money goes - it goes to people doing JOBS!

sinanju| 7.1.11 @ 3:15PM

Telling whoppers with a straight face is how liberals debate. I don't have the kind of head that can memorize, retain, crunch and spew the numbers necessary to debate budgets and deficit, and revenue figures on an annual and quarterly basis going back forty years.

But your last paragraph, Purple, is a showstopper. Are you actually stating with a straight face on this forum that government spending is creating jobs? Taking money out of the private sector to create temporary make-work projects and (mostly) to prop up state and municipal government employees is going to save us?

I'd just like to hear you confirm that statement for the benefit of the rest of us.

Mimi| 7.2.11 @ 8:01AM

I suspect Soro's let PURP hire a Google expert! Still all lies and B-S ! Nothing changes...they still want to steal our LIBERTY and bring down the country to do it!

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 8:46PM

Yes - where do you think the money goes? People who are unemployed spend their unemployment benefits. That circulates the money and is a force multiplier that helps the economy UNTIL the private sector jobs come back. All Government spending is not equal. Some is entitlements, Social Security and Medicare (money to Seniors that have paid in to it), some is for defense (money to defense contractors and active and reserve duty armed forces), some is Administrative salaries (money to Federal workers and agencies).
BUT when the economy slows down, the government steps in to pay for infrastructure work (money to construction workers), tax cuts (money to all tax cut receivers), grants to states (money to State employees, like fire, police and teachers, etc., and State contractors.
Now WHEN economic times improve, the government steps back and curtails that kind of spending for economic stimulus.
Don't be stupid - it has been that way ever since economies existed - or they failed.

What you should have been doing is telling Bush that when the surplus from Clinton years dried up after the dotcom boom went bust, and wasn't going to happen, the Bush tax cuts were rescinded. That and being more careful how and when we go to war, and we'd be in better shape now.
You can research all this for yourself - unless you only read partisan rags that give you one side of the story. I"m with Ron Paul - scale back the American empire and he estimates a $1 Trillion/year savings from not being the world's policeman. That alone trims our deficits by at least 2/3. Add some other spending cuts and raise a little revenue by reforming the tax code - and voila - no more deficits. It's not that hard people and we don't have to throw anybody out the window.

chuck| 7.3.11 @ 10:20AM

So unemployment is good for the economy, paying people to do nothing is good. Is that what you are trying to say?
Purple, you really are an economic dumb-ass.

Mimi| 7.3.11 @ 10:29AM

Purp....Your Soro's new guy is giving you OLD , dated 2005 ish stuff to argue...come on...we are on to you! It is the 2011 ....Dem guys scary, commie stuff that has us Liberty lovers terrified of losing the country. To us this is different...VERY different. A 20% minority is trying to rule and I mean RULE the 80% of the country.....It's out of WHACK....BIG correction coming...maybe sooner rather than later. Your big PUSH is a waste of time....The AMERICAN HEART is now wounded....and MAD AS HECK!

Clint| 7.1.11 @ 9:17PM

Duuuuuuhhhhh !
PurpleAss & His Mancrush Obama Are Economic Buffoons.
The U-3 Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office Was 7.7 Percent.

Now, It's at 9.1 Percent.

Do Your Homework ObamaBoy.

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 8:47PM

Yep, it went up for months after Obama took office - and it has come down from near 10% - your point is?

Clint| 7.3.11 @ 10:01AM

Duuuuuuhhhhh ! You're An Economic Imbecile.

That The Unemployment Rate Is Up Under Obama,You Economic ObamaBoy Clown.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates

Carpe Diem.

chuck| 7.3.11 @ 10:16AM

Does George Soros write this shit for you? You can't cut spending? Why the hell not? Your side massively raised spending through the stimulus(which didn't stimulate a damned thing) and the budget. Now you say there is nothing you can cut. How about taking spending levels back to the 2008 levels. How about stop paying people NOT to work. There are about 14,000 open jobs working in the fields in S. Georgia, because the illegals are fleeing the state. If we stopped paying people not to work, these jobs would be filled.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.1.11 @ 10:00AM

I paid a ton more for my fuel, my groceries, my medicine. My proporty taxes were a push, some up some down. I paid more on income.
Overall is was up more than any year since I have been doing my own bookkeeping.

Indiana Alex| 7.1.11 @ 11:56AM

Good lord will you please try to think for yourself instead of repeating talking points that are only true from a particulary point of view? Oh yes, you are a liberal drone and can't muster an original thought.

I suppose we are the least taxed at any time since whatever when you look at the fact that there are so many people for whom the effective federal tax rate is less than zero, for which of course you can thank the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which went overwhelmingly to the decidedly non-rich even if we chose to measure millionares and billionares by increments of $200,000 and $250,000 depending on their marital status.

I understand it is not in your nature, but someday when you grow up and get a job, perhaps start a family you will be forced to think your own thoughts, as you will find it far more difficult to navigate the waters of the real world by simply repeating the words of others, particularly when they hold no truth.

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 1:57PM

All of the Bush tax cuts should expire - that's a 4 Trillion dollar swing back to the Treasury. Hmmm, that alone takes a whopping huge bite out of the deficit. We have to pay our way, regardless of how much it hurts. The Clinton tax structure didn't hurt this country at all. We could stop all the wars, pull back the American Empire as Ron Paul suggests and save a Trillion a year on that (his words not mine). Now, tell me that isn't a lot easier than all this haggling on who's ox get's gored?

lzreno| 7.2.11 @ 6:03PM

Purp dude, Do you remember that GWB's last budget deficit was 163 billion, including the two wars? Yep, the 2006 budget......then Nancy and Harry took over. You must be either a gov't employee or some other nimrod to not see that the increase since 2006 is unecessary! So, lets roll the gov't services to say the 2005 levels, and see what happens. Maybe start by dumping all of the "non-essential" employees that go home early on snow days?

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 8:51PM

It didn't include the 2 wars - they were considered "emergency spending" by Bush and were off the books. Obama put them on the books (transparency) ... And, Bush's last budget was 1.2 Trillion in deficit. Obama started working with Bush's budget, just like Bush started with Clinton's last budget. There's a year lag....

As far as a Democratic Congress - name one bill that Bush signed that you didn't like after the Democrats controlled Congress - it weren't just Nancy and Harry - Baby Bush had his pen or nothing would pass - you do know how bills become law? how taxes become law? how tax cuts become law? Dont you?

skip| 7.1.11 @ 12:14PM

Liar.

Wall Street Journal:

"After the Bush investment tax cuts in 2003, tax revenues were $786 billion higher in 2007 ($2.568 trillion) than they were in 2003 ($1.782 trillion), the biggest four-year increase in U.S. history."

You are stupid.

You are a liar.

You are immoral.

How can you sleep? Bear the sight of your image in a mirror?

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 2:00PM

Tax revenues on what? The Financial Services Industry made Trillions of income in credit default swaps and collaterized debt obligations sales- the very thing that caused the world economy to almost collapse. The country was in overdrive and a housing bubble to boot - that is not sound fiscal or monetary policy for a country and we are paying for it now - Please try and be smart and stop the name calling - it's very immature of you. Before you call someone a liar, find out if there is any truth behind the concepts. Do your homework will you? Otherwise your opinion is just that, and nothing more, and of little use to anyone.

skip| 7.1.11 @ 3:01PM

Purpleguy | 6.29.11 @ 11:26AM

"The big difference is that gayness is not determined by your intellect or emotional feelings, it is inborn just like heterosexualness, skin color, or height."

Provide the truth behind the above concept you posted two days ago and explain the homework you did on this, otherwise your opinion is just nothing of use to anyone reading it.

Of course, what's the big deal with being known as a hypocrite when you are already known as stupid, a liar, and immoral.

And you might as well keep ignoring Obama's deficits are more than a trillion dollars per year higher than Bush's while you keep insisting on pinpointing the reason the economy is performing as it is.

Idiot.

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 3:09PM

Provide the truth about how you became heterosexual, assuming you are ... And stop the name calling - it makes you oh so small.

skip| 7.1.11 @ 6:19PM

Provide how you and your sexually deviant perverted degenerate of a partner, assuming you are a sexually deviant perverted degenerate, can be fruitful and multiply, much less avoid extinction through the process of natural selection, if your sexually deviant perverted degeneracy is inborn.

When you post statements utterly lacking in any intelligence whatsoever, whether the topic is on economics, politics, religion, or science, being referred to as stupid is an accurate description of you.

When you post statements utterly lacking in any honesty whatsoever, whether the topic is on economics, politics, religion, or science, being referred to as a liar is an accurate description of you, in addition to stupid.

When you post statements utterly lacking in any intelligence and utterly lacking in any honesty continuously, whether the topic is on economics, politics, religion, or science, being referred to as immoral is an accurate description of you, in addition to stupid and a liar.

When you post statements utterly deceitful that you yourself ignore, whether the topic is on economics, politics, religion, or science, being referred to as a hypocrite is an accurate description of you, in addition to stupid, a liar, and immoral.

When you post statements utterly ignoring intelligent and honest responses from dozens of readers, whether the topic is on economics, politics, religion, or science, being referred to as an idiot is an accurate description of you, in addition to stupid, a liar, immoral, and a hypocrite.

lzreno| 7.2.11 @ 6:04PM

You Sir(?), are a pantload!

lzreno| 7.2.11 @ 6:05PM

directed at the purpleguy....

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 8:52PM

Kinda gets you don't it?

Thom| 7.1.11 @ 5:22PM

“Tax revenues on what? The Financial Services Industry made Trillions of income in credit default swaps and collaterized debt obligations sales- the very thing that caused the world economy to almost collapse.”

Can you explain how the Financial Services Industry made “trillions of income” that I can’t find in IRS reported tax revenue for said sector and then managed to collapse (not the world economy) after having made what you say is “trillions” off what is at best accounting gimmicks? The biggest income producers during the housing bubble were those people who sold new houses for elevated values and were taxed on those incomes because they couldn’t then reinvest that income and shelter it. Existing homes sold for elevated values are sheltered income to the seller who is the owner not the builder. The Financial Services industry made money on the transactions and interest income off the elevated selling price but none of this accounts for “trillions of income” to anyone or accounts for a net 1 trillion loss in revenue income to the Federal government. Try a different brand of propaganda and see if that sells better. There is more here at work than I suspect you understand about a free market you might try accounting for the net 1 trillion dollar loss of tax revenue and who produced the income that is no longer being produced for starters. It is a bit more complicated than your political agenda will allow you to think.

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 9:00PM

Fine, Trillions was hyperbole - but hundreds of billions did occur. Many a hedge fund manager made hundreds of millions to billions. Go check Goldman-Sachs for one - and what AIG had insured against default for another - oh, and don't forget Lehman Bros, Bear-Sterns too. Even Bush's last Treasury secretary made hundreds of millions before becoming secretary (CEO of Goldman he was) and he's the one who oversaw the meltdown and begged for TARP! Why do you think the banks paid out such huge bonuses with the TARP dollars - the people earned it by making the company money (on bad investments however).
Free market is a fallacy - it is controlled by the corporate and wealthy who have access and influence to government to get favorable treatment through lobbyists. Why you think they pay for lobbyists?
It's a LOT more complicated than anyone can explain here - ergo the Economics profession.

skip| 7.5.11 @ 3:02PM

More proof you are stupid, a liar, immoral, a hypocrite, and an idiot.

Laws intended to criminalize murder are a fallacy - murder still occurs every single day on this planet, unabated, ever since Cain murdered Abel, and obviously murder cannot be controlled, despite centuries of laws.

If politicians influence an unequal treatment of any free market participants for any reason at a minimum remove that politician from office in the next election.

Stupid lying immoral hypocritical idiot.

Al Adab| 7.1.11 @ 1:12PM

Purp;
n You and I both know that it's the spending side not the income side that is the source of our problem. All too many people- and I'm sure you are not one of them- think that as long as they can make the minimum credit card payment, their 100K debt balance doesn't matter. We of course know that it does.

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 3:08PM

Look up all the additional spending incurred by the unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other extra outlays the government has because of the loss of jobs from the Bush Great Recession. Then add to the that the cost of the 2 wars from the Bush era that continues still. Throw in Libya and any other foreign war we secretly wage. Then add the loss of income to the Treasury from the reduced tax income from millions not working - add it all up subtract that from the deficit and see where you are. THEN, and only then does it make sense to talk about what we need to do.
Reform the tax code - cut corporate tax rate, close all 180 "tax expenditures" that only 10% of the country enjoy anyway, raise the Social Security Retirement age to 67, raise the Medicare benefit age to 66 and raise the Medicare tax to 2%, cut spending by cutting the defense budget in 1/2 to 350 billion, end the wars and put people to work rebuilding America to get them working again, with money in their pockets to spend. Disband the TSA, and Homeland Security Dept - it doesn't work anyway.
If only the Congress had the b* to do this, something both D's and R's don't want to do, we could lick this thing.

Al Adab| 7.1.11 @ 3:46PM

Like you say Purp, there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. It didn't happen overnight and it won't be fixed overnight, but we have to start somewhere. Eliminating Depts. is a good idea, nothing in the way of cuts should be off the table and frankly I'm not convinved Medicare ( I am old enough to know) actually does anything, but could be convinced. What we do need is people with Spine in office to begin , somewhere, anywhere, to start cutting and fix this mess. Sometimes our interests do coincide and that is the time and place to act.

Thom| 7.1.11 @ 5:08PM

"Then add the loss of income to the Treasury from the reduced tax income from millions not working"

And just how much tax revenue has the extra 4-6% unemployed over a nominal 5% average would that be using the average tax paid by the average tax payer? All the average tax paid by the average tax payer for all the unemployed including those that are normally unemployed in any given year won’t pay the Dept of Education’s bill. 14,000,000 (all unemployed) x $5,000 = 70 billion in tax revenue less than the Dept of Education budget. There is a long ways between 70 billion and a net 1 trillion dollar loss in revenue from said people. Something missing here?

sinanju| 7.1.11 @ 3:25PM

So we are less taxed now than we have ever been since the end of WWII (I've heard this one before, it seems to be a favorite)?

Another bold statement that libs like to toss out, daring anyone to be able to dispute it in detail on the fly. "Google it" seems to be your favorite rejoinder. When someone make such a jaw-dropping assertion in a debate it should be HIS job to back it up on the spot, not for his opponent to be able pick it apart (another favorite lib debating tactic, I recall a liberal guest on the Tavis Smiley show confidently assert that Obama had passed 195 tax reductions) You said it, Purple, how about you defend it?

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 9:05PM

I used to provide y'all links, but I got the same crap coming back at me telling me how wrong I was and no links proving your points ... so I got tired of trying to prove it to you - so prove it to yourself - the information is out there, if you care to doubt that what you've been told is untrue. Remember, corporations control the TV Networks ad Major Newspapers. Stay away from Fox, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal and the NY times though. As you know they all have a bias.

Thom| 7.1.11 @ 4:26PM

Purpleguy,
“We are the least taxed we have been in 60 years (you can google that).”

That statement has the same credibility as a three dollar bill. Like all government statistical reports if you don’t know what data is included and excluded the averages they report are worthless. Given the skewed nature of the income tax burden and an ounce of common sense you already know your statement is false. The IRS says for my income range and adjusted for my specific income the average income tax paid should be $7200.00 I paid over $10,500 last year and a similar amount declining along the inflation rate back as far as the eye can see. If the average amount is supposed to be $7200 and I’m paying $10,500 you think there might be some people paying a bit less than $7200.00 in this same $50,000 income range comrade? Between Federal income tax, 14.7%, FICA 15.3%, State and local taxes another 10% and all the taxes passed on the goods and services I buy, another 20% I can document over 60% of my income going to taxes. What percentage of our income did you pay in Federal taxes last year?

50 years ago my mother paid nothing to Medicare/Medicaid, a third the income tax percentage I do, my father the same and both paid 50% less than I do to SS because the rate was half what it is today. My father owned his own business (60 hours a week), worked part time at another and paid less of his income than I do today and the marginal tax rates were much higher. How is that possible? When you throw out all the non-tax payers in the calculations used to compute the “average” you see a completely different story than the BS you are peddling here.

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 9:08PM

It's simple - just look at the tax burden vs GDP from the 1950's - and that tax burden to GDP today and you have the ratio everyone is talking about... the '50's we paid more % in taxes than we do today ... Individually, you can make a case as you have that it doesn't seem right, but comparing apples to apples it is.

Clint| 7.1.11 @ 7:32AM

Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Core Values

Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual. As an organization we do not take stances on social issues. We urge members to engage fully on the social issues they consider important and aligned with their beliefs.

Handy| 7.1.11 @ 7:51AM

Clint, I respect your oinions very much,

To correct things will take more than elections. It will require bloodshed. We are that far gone.

Socialists must die by the hundreds of thousands to return this nation to its Constitutional roots. Let's start with the public school teachers. Then, we can move on to those idiots who have "Union Yes" bumper stickers. Those guys are all Democrats and will never figtht back.

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 3:10PM

Nice - spoken like a true Nazi...

Thom| 7.1.11 @ 4:00PM

Purpleguy,
By your standards all the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and fought for independence are true Nazis. Anyone that disagrees with your Marxist views is a true Nazi. The first words out of Marxist’s mouth it to call someone a “Nazi” which in practical terms is like the pot calling the kettle black given that both Fascism and all the favors of Marxism fill the same cemetery with bodies eventually. If the ballot box doesn’t get the job done there is always the solution the Founders freely chose. That’s enshrined in the Constitution in several ways. You don’t like the choice because you can’t continue to have your way and live off someone else’s money. Sooner or later it will come down to who is more committed to their ideals and willing to fight for them. Always does when enough people ignore the enumerated contract they live under paid for by the blood of others . Name calling won’t change the outcome.

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 9:15PM

Not so - the Founding Fathers, the Flag, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence are as much mine as yours. But tell, me "Socialists must die by the hundreds of thousands to return this nation to its Constitutional roots" - that sounds American and democratic to you? That sure sounds Nazi-like and authoritarian to me.
Point of clarification - Nazism was the total opposite of Communism/Marxism so to equate the two is nonsense.
I don't live off anyone else - but I do know "there by the Grace of God" go any of us and we can all need a hand sometime in our lives. That's always what seems to bother conservatives - "they take my money and give it to freeloaders" - Who? Your Grandma? the kindergartner next door? The laid off worker down the street? That guy across the street that lost a leg and is now on disability? The veteran that is recovering from war wound? Get real, welfare is a thing of the past as you knew it before.

chuck| 7.3.11 @ 2:49PM

Nazi- short for National Socialist Party.

Fascism: Government control of privately owned business
Capitalism: Private control of privately owned businesses
Socialism: Government ownership of businesses

Now which are the two must closely related?

Instead of calling conservatives Nazis, you should learn the definitions, than look at yourself.

Purpleguy, you truly are an economic dumb-ass.
To put it mildly.

skip| 7.1.11 @ 9:27PM

You just can't make this stuff up. Note the time of both posts.

* * *

Purpleguy | 7.1.11 @ 3:09PM:

"... And stop the name calling - it makes you oh so small."

* * *

Purpleguy | 7.1.11 @ 3:10PM:

"Nice - spoken like a true Nazi..."

* * *

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 9:15PM

Funny how that works, don't it. Would you like the cast the first stone, brother?

skip| 7.5.11 @ 3:12PM

More proof you are stupid, a liar, immoral, a hypocrite, and an idiot.

Fascism, whether in the form of communism, naziism, or socialism, is tyranny, the oppression of liberty by government too far left. Hitler was a liberal loon run amok.

Stupid, lying, immoral, hypocritical idiot.

martin j smith| 7.1.11 @ 7:50AM

In my oppinion there will a need to re-evaluate the behavior of the Conservative ,Tea Party, and others who oppose Socialism. The traditional manner of semi-Civil Politics is over. It has come to this. It WILL BE NECESSARY TO BE MORE MILITANT.
If you see the front NYT front page today or perhaps some other paper --there is a MOB in Great Britain opposed to austerity measures. Of yours you have seen Greece and Wisconsin protests as well. Of late perhaps somewhat related are mobs of teenagers out of control robbing and harming citizens and so on. I am very sad to say this, but the LEFT SOCIALISTS
CANNOT BE TRUSTED AT ALL TO BE CIVIL OR TO RUN BY ANY RULES OF ANY KIND. This is not a new discovery in my part but I wanted to articulate a reality that I truly believe many posters on this site do not agree with or are in denial of our reality. I think Marco Rubio's description of Obama as a cheap LEFT Dictator is right on. At some point--and the issue of our debt may be it--the s will hit the f and all hell will break out.

Prester John| 7.1.11 @ 7:59AM

It was probably a typo but for the record Adams and Jefferson died 4 July 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration.

That left Charles Carroll as the sole surviving signer. He died in 1832.

Rich Rostrom| 7.4.11 @ 11:48AM

John Quincy Adams (who was President at the time) thought that this remarkable timing was a sign from God.

Clint| 7.1.11 @ 7:59AM

We Are Listening To What Our Fellow Patriots Have To Say.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up !

Louis Jenkins| 7.1.11 @ 8:50AM

I find it odd, but here we are in a year of discontent amongst the more conservative members of our society. They are unsatisfied with the Big Gov Co. On the other hand we have just as much turmoil by the liberals who want more taxes. The conservatives work and pay taxes. The liberals seem to lay around, complain about their lack of benefits, and do not pay taxes. The staff of the Federal government is loaded with tax evaders. Now which side do you want to be on?

We have been pushed and proded into a corner. We are fed up with the mess that Big Gov Co has brought with its "hope and change" message. We are tired of being told "you need to pay more." We are sick of having liberty after liberty taken from us, sick of having more "user fees" laid on our backs, and asked to send our men and women to the national police force. There's not much left that hasn't been done, or attempted by Big Gov Co. Are we going to be made into slaves? You be the judge, and if you are happy with the way things are, then go ahead and support the District of Criminals. I will pick Liberty. It ain't cheap, it ain't pretty, but it's better than what we have.

Handy| 7.1.11 @ 9:12AM

Well said. But we will have to update Shakespeare. Let's kill all the teachers first.

Plenty of time for the lawyers later.

buckeyeman| 7.1.11 @ 9:29AM

Can we kill just a few lawyers first? I'll send you my list.

DaveD| 7.1.11 @ 4:53PM

Well you know, if it weren't for lawyers we wouldn't need them.

skip| 7.1.11 @ 12:35PM

Why not democratically elect one politician, voted biggest liar, cheat, and thief, and hang this representative of tyranny on the national mall, with the understanding another will be elected in one year, unless none can be found to be a liar, cheat, and thief?

Morally, one (post-birth) abortion of a guilty tyrant, balanced against 53 million (pre-birth) and (partial-birth) 'legal' abortions of innocent Americans denied any liberty, is reasonable to bear as a nation.

Petronius| 7.1.11 @ 9:12AM

There's a disconnect here. With the fundamental shift in the relationship from that of subject and monarch to the quasi plutocracy we are now saddled with, the Crown's equivalent is the paternal judge or bureaucrat. These people are in government to satisfy their own desires for superiority. The defacto despotism of the XVIIIth century is nothing like what we face. Their "vision thing" is absolute power invested in the entrenched elite, and serfdom for the rest of us. With them controlling all cultural institutions and now the armed services too, we are entering an age of top down authoritarianism with a Jacobin facade of faux equality for the proles who believe they have won.
We have only one more chance. The next election will either break this nation of dependency or succumb to it.

JimH| 7.1.11 @ 9:28AM

The constrictions on Liberty imposed by the Crown on the 13 colonies were as noting compared to what we daily endure now. Can you imagine Patrick Henry submitting to a grope down at the airport?

Petronius| 7.1.11 @ 1:49PM

While the point is indeed valid, HM George III had little concern for most minutia of daily life. There are now more buttinskis and social engineers in every level of government today than Carters made pills. In historical context, the reigns of the House of Hanover compared to other Royal houses was bush league. After Henry VIII and Charles I, George III was less effective than we should give him credit for. The true advantage enjoyed by the American colonists can be attributed to the fact that London and the East India Co. were preoccupied subduing the Indian subcontinent. With the bulk of the fleet and British army in the far east they were not available for deployment against Washington's Continental Army.
Today, even the lowest flunky in any agency of Our (?) government considers him and or her self invested with limitless authority. And just like the TSA they behave and act like little tin gods.
When my brother got his industrial certification for HVAC from the EPA he was told by the agency rep supervising the course, "what the code says is pro forma, but violations are different. It's what I decide to charge you with." George III was aware He no longer ruled by divine right. Ask any government employee who God is. They'll tell you.

Louis Jenkins| 7.1.11 @ 9:48AM

Amen JimH. The scope of government requirements and laws overwhelms what our forefathers fought against. And we sit back and let it happen. Are we sheep? To be groped and prodded by those with a fifth grade education? I no longer fly because the TSA has been allowed to virtually rape the American public.

TrueBlue| 7.1.11 @ 2:07PM

Actually there have been quite a few molestation charges against various TSA agents, so it isn't even virtual rape anymore, it's the real thing.

C_T_CZ| 7.1.11 @ 9:54AM

Principled. Trustworthy. Educated. Consistent. Honorable. Noble. Truthful. Authentic. Steadfast. Credible. Accurate. Dependable. Honest. Sincere. Factual. Candid. Plainspoken. Reliable. Correct. Wise.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Ron Paul has voted this way for decades, when everyone else from BOTH political parties voted to expand our monstrous federal government, restrict our freedoms and liberties, take lobbyist money in exchange for political favors, engage in unconstitutional wars, and swamp us with trillions in debt.

Ron Paul sets the bar so high, it makes the other political candidates appear like children. No wonder why the political establishment does not like to even acknowledge him, since he makes them all look so bad in comparison. Ron Paul will serve the American People, not the special interests, not the military industrial complex, not big business wall street, and certainly not the political establishment.

We need a president who will follow the Constitution and inspire other politicians to do the same; the only politician who has reliably shown unwavering adherence to the Constitution is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution.
.
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.
-George Washington

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.1.11 @ 10:03AM

He is also a looney toon that people agree with but would not vote for in a million years.

Clint| 7.1.11 @ 10:53AM

They have called Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Sarah Palin An Idiot. They have called Our Tea Party Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann A Flake. They have called Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul A"Looney Toon" (sp.), while Ron Paul was one of first Congressmen to support Reagan when Republicans and the leadership were calling Reagan a Kook and backing Ford in 1976.

The Ruling Elite Fops & Their Asskissin' Apologists are gonna find out about The Tea Party's Second Wave In The 2012 GOP Primaries & The 2012 General Elections.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

TrueBlue| 7.1.11 @ 2:11PM

Unfortunately he also later disavowed Reagan when it was politically convenient, and he HAS voted for pork spending that is unrelated to the original intent of a bill; not that that's unexpected, every politician does that, and is sent to D.C. with the expectation that they'll get more cash for their state/region.

All-in-all, not a bad guy as far as politicians go, I just can't see him as President. Secretary of the Treasury or head of the Fed would be a good spot for him though.

shipley130| 7.2.11 @ 12:09PM

I am considering a vote for Ron Paul, for the first time in my life. If anyone should be called Looney Tunes, it should be most of the repub candidates. On the flipside, all the democrats should be called criminals.

chuck| 7.3.11 @ 2:58PM

I like Ron Paul on economic issues, but I worry about his willingness to defend the country. I think sometimes he doesn't think through all the ramifications of what he proposes. When he wants to eliminate the Fed, the question should be, "and replace it with what?" I like most of his positions, but he does strike me as slightly loony, and completely unelectable.

Margie| 7.4.11 @ 1:25PM

On this we agree. Happy Independence Day, Michael.

Bill| 7.1.11 @ 9:59AM

Given the revulsion to taxes, and the lack of representation that permitted perceived unjust taxation of the colonists, that drove much of the resistance that ripened into the American Revolution, the statements of some Americans that they believe paying taxes is patriotic and they are willing to pay more taxes as a patriotic strike me (and undoubtedly others) as oddly not consistent with traditional Americanism.

But that's just me.

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 3:13PM

"Taxation without representation" was the problem, not taxes alone. If you want your country strong, you ask not what your country can do for you, but YOU can do for your country. Seems I've heard that before - have you?

Vern Crisler | 7.1.11 @ 8:44PM

It wasn't just taxation without representation. Colonists did not have a problem with taxation without representation as long as it involved tariffs or other fees or taxes involving Britain's trade empire. IOW they didn't have a beef with Britain's attempt to regulate trade.

What they objected to was taxation without representation for the purpose of raising revenue. The colonists believed that taxation for the raising of revenue was in the hands of colonial legislatures -- always had been. Colonists had grown accustomed to representative government in their respected legislatures.

Parliament's claim to have the right to tax the colonies for the raising of revenue was seen by Americans as an encroachment on English liberties. Aside from Burke and some others, the English government at the time of the Revolution lacked statesmen of the caliber of Washington, Jefferson, and other American founders. All they really had at the time were accountants.

Bill| 7.6.11 @ 3:57PM

Why is it necessary to add that personal attempted zinger? Is it your style, or just your nature as a person?

Kurt| 7.1.11 @ 11:01AM

With an ever growing percentage of the population unable to take care of themselves in the least bit, and the number of producers dwindling, the edge of the financial cliff is near! One look at the Asian countries population which are thin, motivated, and willing to learn, no wonder they are cleaning our clock and will continue to do so. Welfare and all the other government freebies, that are paying people not to work MUST end and self reliance MUST be forced back on the population if we are to survive!!

Al Adab| 7.1.11 @ 11:30AM

What the entire discussion brings to mind is whether we are up against that "alter or abolsih" clause once again in our national life. Has our government become "destructive" of the ends for which it was created? Is it not refusing to "protect the States from invasion" and in fact opposing the States that are attempting to act on their own behalf? Should ballots fail to restore Liberty what options remain?

TrueBlue| 7.1.11 @ 2:14PM

Unfortunately it may come to a revolution of some kind to fix the mess we're in, I'm just hoping it isn't one that will require bloodshed. If there was a Libyan style revolution here we'd have China all over us the second it ended because of the vulnerable state we'd be in.

Purpleguy| 7.1.11 @ 3:14PM

So you don't think the TEA party has had any effect?

Thom| 7.1.11 @ 3:41PM

The original Tea Party movement had no practical effect outside of getting more British troops sent to and quartered in Boston which escalated the matter a bit. Likewise political stunts will only carry you so far against an entrenched tyranny.

Thom| 7.1.11 @ 6:02PM

People with Purpleguy’s Marxist mindset (a belief that the “state” has ownership of the fruits of your labor so that it can buy the votes of other’s it relieves of this burden), will never accept the truth of the house of cards the Federal government and many State governments are built upon. The root of this mess is the Progressive income tax system which was a Marx favorite means for reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator for outcome while elevating the top 1% or less to the self-appointed position of King/Queen like that you find in an Ant Farm/Bee nest. So not to confuse Purpleguy here, the drones in those societies give “all “ for their country and live a subsistence life while the King/Queen cast live the lives of what most human call “elitist”. Perhaps that is what John Kennedy meant when he said “ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. Carried to extremes both statements end in the same Greek Tragedy.

Due to the skewed nature of the income burden in this country, the top .63% using 2005 IRS data pay 37% of the income tax burden. The bottom income range for these people starts around $500,000. The next 2.3% adds another 17% on top of the 37% thus 54% of the income tax burden is paid by just 2.3% of those that report taxable income. The bulk of the income produced by that million plus crowd is from investment income (reward for risk taking) not salaries. How do you think those CEO making 25 million salaries at a hand full of major corporations can take 1 dollar for a salary when things get tight for the corporation and keep their house, boats, planes, etc? The upper echelon has always had the option to adjust their incomes according to their comfort zone. Who do you think is buying all this gold by the ton rather than risking their wealth in the stock market or leading the US government money to keep it afloat? When economic times get tight or the government goes on its enduring “tax the rich – more ” crusades the “rich” as defined by the latest crusader ($200,000 and up now makes you a millionaire or billionaire so says King Obama and Al Gore in the past) do what any of us will do to try to preserve their wealth and ultimately their “income”. The bulk of the lost revenue is the result of the “rich” as defined by the current Marxist thugs having parked their wealth and thus lowered their income either because they can’t earn what they were or don’t want to take the risk in an unfriendly investment climate with almost daily statements from the current clowns in Washington DC causing investment values to take large drops on the latest BS coming out of either the White House or the Congress. In short, the revenue is not coming back as long as there is high risk for low reward among those that pay half the income tax burden. Even Liberals don’t like to take unnecessary risk with “their” money. It would be nice if they grasp the simple economic fact that losing other people’s money on Ponzi schemes becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy after a while. FDR spent most of a decade doing the very same suicide pack the current crop of intellectual Marxist are doing and I think Einstein got it right when he said doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. Our prosperity isn’t coming back as long as there is economic insanity running Washington DC.
We didn’t vote ourselves into a “republic” and it certainly looks like voting isn’t going to keep it – “ if you can”

Purpleguy| 7.2.11 @ 9:17PM

Don't put words in mouth ... you need to pay your share to the government for the common good. period. You think you're special and shouldn't have to pay any taxes?

chuck| 7.3.11 @ 3:04PM

Common good.........words from Marxism. Can you show us anywhere that Marxism has worked? How about Keynesian economic theories? Can you show anytime that these have worked? You keep spouting this crap, and it has never worked, ever in the history of man, yet you think it just hasn't been done by the right people. You think your side is so much smarter, so you can get it to work.

Naturalborn Texican| 7.1.11 @ 7:46PM

Clint,
Thanks for the tea party mission statement doc. Now I can fine tune my support and defense of the tea party in a much clearer, detailed, and meaningful way!!

Rise up!

Philip Nadell| 7.1.11 @ 8:58PM

Thank you for such a profound and articulately written piece.God Bless America!

POST American| 7.1.11 @ 11:12PM

----Even putting aside the mystery around
Washington's 'sudden death' after growing alarm at reports of
Illuminati infiltration, and weeks after virtually repudiating his
Freemasonry connections by becoming a
baptized Calvinist Christian-----(ON RECORD)

IMPORTANT to keep in mind the KEY
impress of Calvinists on the Bill of Rights and
Constitution. Freedom of expression and religion
---and SEPERATION of Church and State
---that is going BOTH ways.

AS the Rockefeller championed RED Chinese
Halocaust regime is hailed as history's GREAT
success story --and NOW 'model for the world'

AS we have found reports of MASSIVE tunnel
projects running from Pidgeon Lake B.C --to
Asia

AS RED China is now establishing a 50 square
mile, soveriegn RED Chinese 'eco zone' south
of Boise ----to be 'the first of several'

AS full spectrum police state surveilance unfolds,
across the land

AS PC strangles, indeed, ends debate -----VERY
IMPORTANT.

Very, very, very important

IN FACT

APOCALYPTICALLY IMPORTANT

shipley130| 7.2.11 @ 12:03PM

I don't feel much like celebrating our Independence day this year. I really don't feel very free (or safe) these days. It's not even the criminals I fear that much these days, it's law enforcement and the ridiculous judicial courts, along with our ridiculous lawmakers and even the president. The only thing that I trust now is the US military. Not much to celebrate, for a country that is the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

Jeff Perren| 7.2.11 @ 12:23PM

To bring the discussion back to the actual topic of the article...

"To pay taxes, to vote, to be drafted are the rights of free men, which makes them obligations. What I have a right to do, I should do, for it is part of my identity as a member of a nation."

The point of view of the entire article is surprisingly Progressive, or at least Tory. The Declaration, and many other prior documents and editorials of the period reference far more than the issue of taxes.

They wished to be free men, not ruled by authoritarians from afar. The Founders and other leading intellectuals and legislators of the period wrote and spoke extensively about that.

The essay is historically myopic and philosophically inept.

Just to take one example, to have a right is not to impose an obligation to exercise that right - only to respect the rights of others.

To choose another, even more serious, "my identity as a member of a nation" is a collectivist idea; the United States was founded on an ethic of individualism.

One could go on at essay length detailing the historical and philosophical errors of this article, but that should be enough.

Handy| 7.2.11 @ 12:48PM

Jeff,

I couldn't agree more. You know what JFK said, right? "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

I hate that. "We The People" established the government to serve our needs for domestic tranquility, common defence, liberty and general welfare. It was not the other way around.

Kaplan doesn't get that.

Arizona Bob| 7.2.11 @ 6:15PM

No doubt, the Declaration expressed a broad (and profound) view of how free men can remain free within a structure of government. The Founders, practical men and thoughtful rhetoricians, knew you could make general statements but you have to be specific, and the most specific grievance since the agitation began in the 1760s, focused on taxes.

Montana Mike| 7.2.11 @ 6:38PM

Right on, Zone. And note too that John Kennedy was not talking about government, he was talking about country. It's notorious that these excitable types, obsessed with bratwurst, are summer soldiers.

Thom| 7.2.11 @ 3:38PM

There is as much confusion about the origins of the Revolution as there is about the Civil war. Neither were the result of a single sound bite as is often stated as the cause but both share some common attributes revolving around the use of force to redistribute wealth by some means. Both the North and the British needed large sums of money to sustain their operations and in both cases the Colonies and the South were a bountiful source of revenue via tariffs and similar duties on agricultural exports. Such matters are always more complex than those who write government history books present and thus simplistic causes become that which most people remember from government schools. The organized violence like you see in the Revolution and Civil War doesn’t lend itself to the MOB mentality violence that most people simply transfer to larger more sustained examples. Such killing on such a large scale has a complex set of precepts that will sustain it long after the sound bite clarion calls fade.

Another thing both had in common was a common desire by one group of people to vacate an agreement that they felt had been voided by the other party and that other party resorted to force of arms to keeps its cash cow in line…. That theme repeats throughout history.

Bob K.| 7.2.11 @ 10:52PM

Mr. Kaplan,

I see a note at the end of the article that you are a writer in Washington DC and that you will be reporting from Paris, all this week and next week.

That is a good place to be while instructing us here in the USA on July 4th that the "right to be drafted is the right of all free men."

What on earth are you talking about, Mr. Kaplan?

Are you planning to visit the graves of the Americans in Normandy who had this "right" impressed on them in WW II? If you really believe what you wrote, you should do this.

Perhaps next year at this time you could go to Korea for a week and the following year you could visit Viet Nam?

Then the following year you could stay here and mull over why we no longer have a draft.

Minuteman| 7.4.11 @ 6:03AM

Our liberties for which we fight, generation after generation, insure that our democracy remains vigorous and young. It also insure morons will have the same right to speak as those who actually have something to say. QED, Mr. Bob K.

Bob K.| 7.4.11 @ 12:27PM

Minuteman,
It has indeed been demonstrated that we would fight for our liberties during a period when our democracy was vigorous and young and freedoms were in evidence. That is from the Civil War through World War II. After that our government grew exponentially and bureaucracies were created to to enable it's growth to the detriment of many of our freedoms.

What is evident is that beginning with the Viet Nam conflict our democracy has been reluctant to submit itself to a draft. Historical and political recognition of this fact came about during the Carter years when the draft was abolished.

What is also evident is that the demographics of our democracy has moved south and west during this period of time. It has also picked up, while doing this, populations of people from cultures south of our border who have no historical or cultural connection to our democracy when it was vigorous and young and when it was not as bureaucratically hidebound as it has become since World War II.

It is questionable if these new peoples will submit themselves to a draft in order to maintain the dominance of that class of people who still run our Republic.

It is also questionable if our white, male population; traditionally the cornerstone of our draft, will support it so long as they are in the back of the line of opportunity because of all the "diversity" programs and "affirmative action" programs that our governmental bureaucracies have created.

This is just one small example of how democracy has consequences.

Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 12:45AM

I see a note at the end of the article that you are a writer in Washington DC and that you will be reporting from Paris, all this week and next week.

Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 12:47AM

Then the following year you could stay here and mull over why we no longer have a draft.

Minuteman| 7.4.11 @ 6:09AM

On the other hand, here we have a clear case where censorship, or simple editorial judgment in favor of decent taste, is justified. Why do people sully themselves with such names?

PLR Products | 7.4.11 @ 7:26AM

Now there should be some sort of regulation and censorship about posting content on the internet.

Tenn Slim| 7.4.11 @ 8:13AM

Opine
Legitamacy and recognition thereof our current Admin Government is at risk. By there own admission, these concepts are of no consequence. AGENDAS are, Issues of imposed policy are, Ideology is, these are the concepts that matter. The implementation of same, via the General Revenue is a means to thier ends.
We are way past the tipping point. Outright revulsion of the DC controllers is rampant in the land.
Fortunatley, the US ELectorate is patient, willing to operate within constrained electoral laws. W/O that constraint, we will see 1776 all over again.
end
Semper FI

Judy Eaton| 7.4.11 @ 1:05PM

John Adams did not die on July 4, 1827 but on July 4, 1826, the same day as Thomas Jefferson.

weddingdress | 7.5.11 @ 4:14AM

ghd australia | 7.12.11 @ 9:56AM

http://www.ghdoutletshop-au.com

Lgbpop| 8.1.11 @ 9:42AM

I'd really give this piece more credence if the author wasn't so sloppy with facts. Both Messrs. Adams and Jefferson died July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Declaration of Independence...NOT in 1827 as he stated. That is one bush-league rip-snorter of an error. (I'll allow for the faint possibility that AmSpec has an incompetent proofreader.)

The other goof that comes to mind is right behind it. The Declaration of Independence was ratified on July 2, 1776. The convention attendees decided to make the announcement public throughout the land on July 4, to allow copies of the document to be delivered by horse courier from northern Massachusetts (now Maine) to Georgia in the south in time for everyone to get the news at the same time. This was not an act so much of avoiding hurt feelings by those in the hinterland, so much as it was to avoid opposition forces - and there was certainly opposition to this, as many people considered this treason to their King - to prepare a response before the document actually arrived in the far reaches of the States. Franklin wasn't just whistling Dixie when he told his compatriots, "Gentlemen the die is cast. If we do not now hang together, we will most certainly hang separately."

To blandly assert that the document wasn't approved until July 4 is fatuous. It's not even close to the truth, and the events of those few days are documented in hundreds of different sources easily found by anyone expending a minimum of effort to do so.