The efforts of Tea Partiers to wrap their anti-government agenda within the imagery of our Nation's Founding reached absurd and dangerous heights this morning with the release of Alabama congressional candidate Rick Barber's "Gather Your Armies" campaign ad, which portrays a George Washington-like figure authorizing armed rebellion in response to federal taxation and a law passed through the process established by the Founders (the health care bill). Barber, who is in a runoff for the Republican nomination for the right to challenge Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) in the fall, himself is heard in the ad stating that he would "impeach him," apparently referring to President Obama, and then adds, ominously, "and if that's not enough . . ."
Watch it yourself:
Allow us to clear up a few things. First, as every fifth grader knows, our Founding Fathers rebelled against the British tea taxes primarily because the taxes were imposed upon the colonies without any representation in the British Parliament. That's why the call that resonated from the Founding was "taxation without representation" -- not simply "no taxation." In fact, the Constitution was written, among other reasons, to "promote the general Welfare," and it authorizes Congress to "lay and collect taxes" for that very purpose.
Second, Barber's ad invokes patriots such as George Washington apparently to support a proposition that Washington would surely have found abhorrent: that citizens should engage in armed rebellion in response to government actions sanctioned by our Constitution. In fact, we know precisely how President Washington would have responded if the armed rebellion suggested by Barber materialized: he would have crushed it. We know this because just such a rebellion - the Whiskey Rebellion - happened during Washington's presidency.
Like Barber and his tea party friends, the whiskey rebels of the late 18th Century believed the federal government had overreached and had unfairly imposed taxes upon them. As recounted in Ron Chernow's brilliant biography of Alexander Hamilton, President Washington -- surely the greatest patriot this country has known -- determined this rebellion must be crushed, stating that if "a minority is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government." (p. 473) Then the 62-year old Father of our Country joined Alexander Hamilton and the federal army on a westward journey that put the rebellion to rest.
President Washington would have "gathered the armies" if Barber made good on his veiled threats, not in support of, but in opposition to, Barber's objectives.
Co-authored with Hannah McCrea, Online Communications Director of Constitutional Accountability Center. Cross-posted at Text & History.
Follow Doug Kendall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/myconstitution
Andrew Winston: Obama's Speech: An Enormous Wasted Opportunity
John Ferling: George Washington -- the Teflon Founding Father?
The dumbing down of America is in full swing, and there's no turning back.
And the teabaggers and Glenn Beck have far more in common with the rise of the reich than anybody currently residing in the White House now, I assure you that.
While people pissed and moaned about Rand Paul's discriminatory rantings, taxi drivers in various parts of the country don't want to let you in their car because the "wiskey" you just bought from the local store is against their religion. Not much outcry about that.
Hey, if it is good for the radical religionist, why not Rand Paul?
It's all a matter of persepctive? Whats good for the goose is not good for the gander?
What did prohibition/oppression cause? A powerful and dangerous surge in Mafia crime.
We are currently experiencing a surge in crime, alcoholism, drug usage and suicide because of the economy.
Alcohol and drug usage will cause a surge in domestic violence. Domestic violence will cause repeat offenders as children learn from their parents.
The School to Prison pipeline that the ACLU worries about will increase.
"Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard1.html
the Conservatives, well, if they had their way, we'd all be speaking the Queen's english
From your article:
"British Parliament decided would be repaid by a raise in taxes on the colonies, being as they were the primary beneficiary of the successful prosecution of the war."
Um, no, Britian would have been the primary beneficiary of the war, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to war.
Though I agree with you that taxation without representation is nothing more than propaganda. Just ask the citizens of NJ, who worked in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, who were forced to pay taxes, to PA for years without representation in PA. Many of them used no public services whatsoever of either Philadelphia, or PA.
They fought the imposed tax on the grounds of 'taxation without representation" to no avail.
If I remember correctly, the SCOTUS refused to hear their case, which is their perogative.
If you can't get your case before the SCOTUS by the whim of judicial previlege that is taxation without representation in my opinion.
What about our pensioners?
What they sould be demanding is an investigation into insider trading. So should Americans.
You do know what those rebelious Americans would say don't you?
It's a damned shame Obama doesn't give them the finger.
And since he won't, I got two.
Ignorance is not choice, it is slavery: death. The same practices of big business and government today, are not dissimilar of yesterday: Washington.
Example:
Obama, our current president, had full knowledge of the MMS and BP corruption, and the full power of the presidencey to enact change, protecting the interests of the environment and the lives of the employess of BP working on the rig, and the interests of the average American, but, "refused" to do so, favoring big business.
Salazar, Obama's man, had full knowledge of the catastrophe that was more likely to occur than not, when he received a letter from a lawyer representing the construction firm used by BP, one year ago, warning of such a catastrophe.
A month before the castrophe the BP offical seen repeatedly on the news, starts selling off his stock in BP. I wonder how many others did? Were there any abuses of insider trading? Has anyone looked into it?
It was the Cheney White House and the Cheney MMS that created the mess . . . you made the mess . . . you fix it.
Lets see, today is June 16, 2010, though I think he has been hard at work a little earlier than today. Wasn't it the Pope who recently accussed Satan of ruining the Vaticans celebration of "The Year of the Priest"? Yes, it was.
Get your umbrellas out boys and girls, let the reign begin.
Google is your friend.
Listen, do dah do, do you want to know a secret, do dah do, do you promise not to tell..........
Ohhhh oh oh.
Obama is not the only one who can exercise his right to use the finger, I can two.
The question begged is, "what does the constitution sanction" that Washington was so determined to uphold?
Q. What did Washington find so abhorrent that he was willing to crush it?
A. Small business.
"There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat charge or paying by the gallon. The tax effectively favored large distillers, most of whom were based in the east, who produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them at full capacity, and so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon. Large producers ended up paying a tax of 6 cents per gallon, while small producers were taxed at 9 cents per gallon.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
Washington himself would proceed to build a distillery, becoming the largest distillery in America at that time.
http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/explore_mv/index.cfm/ss/32//cfid/32501267/cftoken/73602462
When the founding forefathers proposed "We the People", who did they have in mind?
We talk about the "founding fathers" as if they were of one mind and purpose. That is an error and one cause of today’s extreme divisiveness.
The "founding fathers" were of various, even extremely opposite foundations. As such, they created what has become our democracy. Some even, as I am told, favored only property owners to be represented, and probably every other imaginable position was amongst that group. Some were more strongly religious than others. And as they intended, just like today, to have all foundations represented – rather than taxation without representation.
The whole premise was based on a mixing, balancing and consensus and compromise, ultimately run by elected officials, based on their platforms. So today the populous (supposedly, not corporations and lobbyist) chose who and what is to be discussed and decided for the good of all, not just any one side in power. The majority is ot supposed to runover the minority, but rather strive for win win, at least win and ok. To achieve balance this diversity is necessary, having right, left, moderate, Libertarian, and a good dose of dissidents. What we have had in recent administrations are the self entitled, self proclaimed “other classes”, even extreme factions, attempting to bend the will of all – not good.
Conservatives fought the idea of American independence tooth and nail.
Then took up arms to force the legitimacy of their illegal enterprise.
While there should be no religious test to hold office, but there should be a civics test to hold office!!!!!!
BP did.
Such people are extremely dangerous, unscrupulous. They take advantage of their freedom of speech to expand their self destruction to the widest possible swath of humanity they can influence.