This is one of my few rants, but one I feel very strongly about. If you are left-wing, right-wing, easily offended, Repulican, Democrat or don’t like coarse language, this blog post is not for you. Nor is it for anyone that has a stick up their ass about politics. This is your only warning. Stop reading now if you are easily offended or a politically driven moron who thinks their party is right no matter what. Because I’m not gonna pull shots. Every one of you, no matter your political affiliation, or lack there of, are going to be called out and whittled down to the bare minimum. Once again, stop reading if you think you’ll be offended…because frankly, I won’t give a fuck
.
.
.
.
.
You’re still with me? I’m impressed. But that’s okay some of you might leave before this is over, and I won’t really care. Let’s get this ball rolling shall we?
I find it adorable that no one could come up with an original idea for Tax Wednesday. Oh sure, you might call it original, if you were to hyperbole the word original, but a Tea Party on Tax Day to protest “taxation without representation” and “spending our tax money on things we don’t approve over” was the lamest idea ever.
L
A
M
E
Lame. Why am I saying its lame? Well for a few reasons. Let’s go over them shall we?
1. The confusion over what the “tea party” was for.
You have some of the undereducated folks saying taxation without representation. I would like to review history here, as it seems some folks have difficulty with this one simple term.
The phrase “No Taxation Without Representation!” was coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750. By 1765 the term “no taxation without representation” was in use in Boston, but no one is sure who first used it. Boston politician James Otis was most famously associated with the term, “taxation without representation is tyranny.”[1]
Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660.[2] By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.[3] The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament they complained the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament contended that the colonists had virtual representation.
In Britain representation was highly limited; only 3% of the men could vote and they were controlled by local gentry.[6] Therefore the British government argued that the colonists had virtual representation in their interests. In English history “no taxation without representation” was an old principle and meant that Parliament had to pass all taxes. At first the “representation” was held to be one of land, but by 1700 this had shifted to the notion that in Parliament all British subjects had a “virtual representation.” “We virtually and implicitly allow the institutions of any government of which we enjoy the benefit and solicit the protection,” declared Samuel Johnson in his political pamphlet Taxation No Tyranny. He rejected the plea that the colonists, who had no vote, were unrepresented. “They are represented,” he said, “by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England.”
The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by Charles Pratt, Earl of Camden, and especially by William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. It was wholly rejected in the colonies, who said the “virtual” was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their republican belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Colonists said no man was represented if he were not allowed to vote. Moreover, even “If every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold,” said Daniel Dulany, “not one could vote, but upon the supposition of his ceasing to become an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident of Great Britain.” The colonists insisted that representation was achieved only through an assembly of men actually elected by the persons they were intended to represent.[citation needed]
In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, Prime Minister William Pitt stated:
The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it.[7]
Grenville responded to Pitt, saying the disturbances in America “border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine I have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to produce a revolution.” External and internal taxes are the same, argued Grenville. The legal questions surrounding the constitutional nature of the Imperial Crown-in-Parliament’s right to legislate and tax for the British Isles and Empire, and the colonies’ chartered rights to legislate and tax themselves is dealt with sensitively and lucidly at the following link.[2] or google search ‘declatory act imperial representation’.
Still with me? Thank wikipedia for that, otherwise this diatribe would have more information from me, being a history minor, than you might want to sift through. The gist of what I am saying here is in the 18th century, Americans at that time were being taxed without representation in the British Parliament.
Is this true today? Certainly not. And don’t try to cough and sputter and say that you aren’t represented because your party didn’t win the elections. Life isn’t fair mate and the popular vote wins. That’s how it’s set up. They are, by the constitution, still your constitutional representative and you, in turn are their constituants. You ARE being represented DESPITE your misguided and uneducated beliefs that you are not being represented.
Side note: you don’t have to like your representative. Many folks don’t, but they are there to serve you as a public servant. They are there for you to complain to. You know, use your voice, talk to them, e-mail them, let them know how you feel? I’m sure most of you are smart enough to do just that and be able to do research to be able to contact them too.
2. They are spending money in ways that we don’t approve of
Strange, this argument was never brought up with Bush and the extensive spending he did and the things he screwed up.
But let’s just say they are. Well, then, you have a problem don’t you? Those of you that voted for representatives that you liked got into office and now they are voting for things you don’t like.
Strange concept isn’t it? No it’ isn’t. It happens all the damn time. Get over it. Maybe next time you’ll do more research instead of following your party blindly and electing someone who is a liar (aka politician). Politicians want one thing: YOUR VOTE. And they don’t honestly care how they get it. So if they made you believe a lie, who’s the sucker? Not them I’ll tell you that because you’re paying their federal salary with your tax money?
Hmmmmm back to the tax money with that one aren’t I? Damn straight. If you don’t like what they are doing, do something about it.
“Well Kayhynn, you keep saying do something about it, and we did, we held a tea party. None of the major news agencies covered it, except FOX.”
Well, darling reader, let me make something blatantly clear to you. Fox are biased towards Republicans. CBS, MSNBC, CNN are biased towards Democrats. And before you say no they aren’t (and if any of you major news folks are reading this want to challenge me, bring it on, I have proof) they are.
Doesn’t matter which group is reporting, if Fox is reporting on something related to Obama it will have a negative slant towards him and a positive slant on how the Republicans are trying to temper it and improve it. It’s vice versa for the other ones. There are no un-biased journalists out there. Nor are there journalists that rely on pure facts anymore. Instead, their OPINIONS are thrown in with the writing. Half truths, instead of the full truth full of facts, are put in to reports.
Doesn’t 6 million people participating in the national Tea party Day mean somethign?
Yes. It means that you have a few million people who are educated and no what the fuck they are talking about. And you have a significantly large number of people who follow blindly because “so and so said” and believe them.
I’m not a numbers person, but for this sentence I will be. 6 million people participated. That sounds quite impressive doesn’t it?
It does, until you consider the population of the United States as a whole. As of July 2008, the population of the U.S. sits at (est.) 303,824,640
6 million out of 303 million protested. That’s a grand total percentage of 1.9.
That’s right. 1.9% of the U.S. came out to demonstrate that “we are being taxed without representation” and “how money is being spent is unconstitutional” and “they’re spending our grandchildren’s money”.
Hmmmm…..and the other, I’ll be generous and say 92% (counting folks who didn’t attend these tea parties but feel the same way) aren’t having issues with it?
What this boils down to is a very SMALL percentage of very VOCAL individuals who wish they were represented and get their way and aren’t.
We live in America which is a…..what? Democracy. Not socialist, which is what it would be if they catered to the 1.9% who are saying the government is being capitalistic and doing things against the constitution.
Which makes for a great segue way to my next topic point of this blog/rant.
“What they are doing is unconstitutional”
If you feel that strongly about it, as a good American citizen, you should know enough about the constitution and how to combat things that are unconstitutional. it is your RIGHT and OBLIGATION to do so.
In other words, shit or get off the pot, but don’t sit there bitching about your ass hurting if you aren’t going to actually do something.
We did do something?
Yes, you did. Congratulations. When you’re done giving everyone handjobs (wash your hands when you’re done please!) maybe you might consider, you know, looking at how you can do things through the constitution.
That sounds like work.
Well, that’s part of life, but I’ll make it easy for you if you keep reading.
First, I hope many of you realize that the government is set on a series of checks and balances. The judiciary is the final check of the balances and can put a stop to these things you feel might be unconstitutional.
This chart, below, explains this checks and balances system in laymen’s terms.
As you can see here, the Judicial Branch can “Interpret laws and presidential actions”. This means they can decide if they are constitutional or not, as has happened on several laws in the past, including the Indecency Act of 1996,
So what I’m saying is, take it through the court system. Find the legislation and documentation in the constitution that proves that certain specific things are unconstitutional and file a case saying that this act has violated your constitutional rights.
That is your right and obligation as a citizen. If you want to stop unconstitutional acts from happening, then put your talk where your money is and do something about it.
None of you are innocent
Before you say “Hah, this will show the democrats are corrupt” and yadda yadda yadda, all of you politicians are corrupt. And when something comes down from this, it won’t be just Democrats under the fire. Republicans and Liberals too.
So think on this: Shit or get off the pot.
