A Tyrannical Government – Really?
What are all these cries about tyrannical government? Why are others saying the government is NOT tyrannical? People seem confused. Do people even know what tyranny is? To understand this topic’s depths, we must break down the terms.
By definition, tyranny is a cruel and oppressive government or rule (Merriam-Webster, Tyranny). “Oppressive” means very unpleasant or uncomfortable, and “cruel” means causing or helping to cause suffering (Merriam-Webster, Oppressive). So ask yourself the question: Does the government rule in an unpleasant, uncomfortable manner? Does the government cause or help to cause suffering? It may seem counterintuitive, but the answer is not as easy as yes or no—the reason why is due in great part to perspectives. Most would agree that the government has its moments where they fit the definitions provided, but the retort is often that its intent is not to do so. Does it matter if the intent does not match the result?
Historical cases of tyranny in the United States are easy to come by. Of course, at this point, many who read that sentence immediately thought I missed the word “not.” That sentence is correct. Examples are easy to come by. There is a frame issue at hand, though. What one deems to be tyranny may not be classified as tyranny to another. For the sake of argument, we will focus on a general theme of the introduction of Democracy and the decay of the Republic. This begins right before 1913.
You are about to read one of the most important facts you have ever been exposed to. If you embrace and study this, it can fundamentally change your entire political position.
Since 1913, there have been approximately five constants in this great nation. 1) An increase in the size of government. 2) A reduction in personal liberty. 3) A continual devaluation of the dollar. 4) A continuation of policy from one administration to the next. 5) Both major political parties are responsible for the previously stated. Now take a few minutes to ponder this. Can it be disputed?
The Size of Government and Continuation of Policy
This can almost go without saying, but we should address the elephant in the room for clarity. 1913 was a big year for the American people. We mark this day as the beginning of the end of our Republic for several reasons.
Yes, our government has grown since it was first created. This is not in dispute. However, there are certain times when the government grew substantially over other periods. This usually occurs when the ability to do so presents itself. The point you need to be aware of is that the federal income tax made that growth possible.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The Federal Reserve was also created in 1913, and this should come as no surprise as the two are very much connected at the hip. Perhaps you can thank Woodrow Wilson and his corrupt attitude for this. Then, of course, the Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914.
When the federal income tax was introduced, the highest tax bracket was 7 percent for all income above $20,000. Due in great part to the war, by 1918, the highest rate rose to 77 percent, beginning at $4,000. In other words, the government took in a substantial amount of money. Over the next decade, federally-owned corporations grew like weeds. Of course, this model did not stop and simply expanded the federal government’s size and scope.
Again, the U.S. government grew substantially with President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration and his introduction of entitlements. One of the largest spikes in government growth was between 1933 and 1945. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal meant many more federal employees to handle the ever-increasing size and scope of social programs. When WWII came around, he used this as another tool to expand its power. During the twelve years that Roosevelt ruled, the total number of federal employees increased from a little over half a million in 1933 to an amazing 3.5 million in 1945 (US-History, 2013).
It did not stop there. The mission was set, and the model worked. From 1960 to 1990, wars continued, programs were introduced, frivolous reasons were provided, and the number of state and local government employees increased from 6.4 million to 15.2 million. With an increase in the size of government, these programs continued from one president to the next, and both parties were and remain responsible.
How does all this happen if there are two unbelievably different sides in the political spectrum? One is for small government, and one is for bigger government, but one would think that a reduction in the size would have occurred at some point. This is a clue to help you understand that there is no difference between the two sides. They are on the same side . . . and that side is the opposite of you, the American citizen. Consider the following:
Have you ever considered that perhaps two sides are not that different? Think about it: The wars in the Middle East have involved at least four different presidents. NAFTA/SPP/ Trans-Pacific Partnership/etc. have spanned at least three presidents. We are witnessing the phrase “Meet the new boss—Same as the old boss.” These examples continue, but the effort is merely to demonstrate the point. This becomes clear whenever someone tries to change it. BOTH sides go after them.
Furthermore, when we examine each party’s platforms, we see that both parties are really a “false-choice” for the American people. For instance, how can a party be pro-life and pro-death penalty simultaneously? How can a party campaign on reducing the size of government but increase government at the same time? Think about when it comes to abortion, drugs, the justice department, immigration, marital issues, and sexual behavior. Does the government play a role?
On the other side of the aisle, that “other” party expects the government to control everything (especially economic aspects) and believes the government is the mechanism necessary for supporting public goods and regulating business. They demand public charity but seldom provide it themselves. They demand tolerance but provide none for opposing views, and they can somehow deny government altogether regarding marital or sexual behavior.
These examples, too, go on for days. You need to understand that what you have been presented with is a false choice. The truth is that if anyone were to ask you if it was okay to tell YOU how to live your life, you would tell them “no.” Perhaps the problem is that people have too much time on their hands and feel it is somehow okay to meddle in their neighbors’ lives. It is hard to say, but irrelevant all the same.
Most of the issues that each party represents are usually morality issues that are state dictated anyway. The 10th Amendment states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States, respectively, or the people. This means that your state or city will decide on the morality issues, not the President or even Congress. Why? It is because morality is not exactly addressed in the Constitution and is not the responsibility of Congress. So why do these same issues continue to come up? It is because it splits the people up and keeps them distracted from the fact that they are being robbed or worse.
George Washington warned us about the party system. He said it would tear us apart. Look at what it has done. If you are the type to vote down party lines simply because you have some sort of hatred for this “other side,” then you are probably more to blame than most. You are transferring power into the hands of those who would do the worst with it. Remember, over time, power corrupts.
Devaluation of the Dollar
Why do things cost so much today? You probably remember your grandparents talking about how cheap things were when they were a child. This has a lot to do with inflation. This section will be relatively short because it simply is not that hard to figure out.
In economics, inflation is a general price increase and a fall in money’s purchasing value (Merriam-Webster, Inflation). The government recognizes inflation as a real thing; economics recognizes inflation as a real thing. The fact that inflation is real is not in dispute. Still, the media and other entities would have you believe that your dollar has not lost value. This illustrates that they think you are stupid.
The premise is quite simple, though. If there is inflation in currency, that currency is devalued, by definition. To debate, this is a lesson in futility and likely an exercise of ignorance or stupidity.
We need a reference point to help you understand this a little more clearly. Let us start with 1913 as compared to today. If, in 1913, you purchased an item at $20, then in 2013, that very same item would cost you roughly $472. This is a demonstration of the devaluation of your dollar. If you do the math, you will see that most of your dollar is gone. The cumulative inflation rate has been roughly 2262.4% since 1913 (USIC, 2013).
How does this happen? Thank your privately owned Federal Reserve Bank for printing money without anything to back it. You need to understand that money is supposed to represent a physical asset. If there is no real asset, there is no real value. Today, the only thing backing our currency is the idea that it is worth something and a little foreign oil. The inevitable occurs when you lose that idea and see it for what it is.
A Reduction in Liberty
Are you free? Is your neighbor free? Better yet, do you think the government is protecting YOUR interests or their own?
Please take a few minutes to look up things like The Bonus Army, an assembly of thousands of World War I veterans and their families who marched on Washington, D.C., in 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Read about the government’s reaction and the names of the leaders who turned against their own brothers in arms. Read about the veterans’ deaths at the hands of the government (Schmidt & Hans, 1987).
Take a few minutes to look up Operation Northwoods, the proposal calling for the CIA to impose self-inflicted wounds orchestrated to appear as acts of terrorism in the U.S. to bolster public support for a war against Cuba. AKA: False Flag Operations (DOD, “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba (T.S.),” 1962).
Take a few minutes to look up the Kent State Massacre, the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970 (Laurent, Spring 2001).
And while the offenses could be listed page after page, some who are reading these words are already justifying the federal government’s actions as though they had a justifiable reason — shame on you.
Then, we see our situation becoming even more horrendous when adding things like the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, etc. The Patriot Act (and the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011) destroyed your 4th amendment rights (among others). The government can review your personal effects, such as email, internet activity, and cell phone activity, without a real warrant and, in many cases, without your knowledge. The National Defense Authorization Act destroyed your 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights. Anyone can potentially be arrested and held without trial indefinitely, placed in confinement, etc.
Both the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, in conjunction with the NSA’s deliberate targeting, only further illustrate the point and the complete lack of regard the government has for its people. Obviously, the government does not trust the people. Once again, people justify these actions because they believe it is being done for their protection even though their TRUE protection (the Constitution) is being destroyed.
We will discuss this in more detail in the coming articles, but consider the IRS and its tactics. People are committing suicide in this great nation due to the threats and actions of the Internal Revenue Service. People are downright afraid of the IRS. Why? It is because the government will be more than happy to destroy your lives if you cross them. Think about the targeting of News Reporters or the Tea Party.
This also brings into question the unbelievably high tax revenue; the government continues to acquire at a time when the people need their money the most. According to U.S. Census data, tax revenues for U.S. states soared to their highest in 25 years in the second quarter of 2013 as personal income tax collections reached record amounts. What about now? Record after record. This is not a new thing, though, as demonstrated earlier in this article. However, you need to understand that with each increase in tax revenue comes a substantial increase in the size of government or government regulation.
Ask yourself if the government rules unpleasantly or uncomfortably. Does the government cause or help to cause suffering? The answer is an un-debatable and quite emphatic, “Yes!” Early on in this article, you learned that the federal income tax made the growth of the federal government possible. So if the government is out of control and utilizes the income tax and the IRS for their tyrannical ways, it only makes sense that this tyranny’s elimination or drastic reduction lies within the same entity.
Is it possible to revisit the Fairtax?