Why Independence Day is a Sham

On the Fourth of July, Americans routinely gather together, blow things up, eat lots of food, and socialize to commemorate the day on which the British North American colonies (excluding Canada, to the great chagrin of more imperialist-minded Founders) declared their independence from the metropole.  The reasons for such a declaration were made explicit by the immortal Thomas Jefferson in his justly famous “Declaration of Independence.”  While I have dealt with the extreme historical folly and shortsightedness of this action in the past, I will now deal with why the continued celebration of independence is a paramount example of the lack of historical depth and political vision which plagues our country today.  I will attempt to use the “Declaration” itself to illustrate how deeply corrupted our political culture has become since 4 July, 1776, and how terribly inconsistent are those voters who insist on maintaining some meaningful connection to the Founding Generation while perfectly willing to maintain political policies 100% antithetical to the Founder’s wishes for the fledgling country.  In the “Declaration,” Jefferson begins by illuminating the political philosophy which undergirds the colonists’ revolt:  ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”  Notice that Jefferson does not claim that rights come from the government, from the Constitution (which would not exist for another 11 years, any yet somehow they managed to defeat the world’s premier military power and do quite well under a cacophony of state governments and a weak central power), or from the Christian god, but rather from “their Creator,” the unnamed deity which established the laws of Nature, including the limits of universal human rights.  Today, however, voters of all persuasions insist that some article or another of the government grants rights, which can then include whatever said government wishes–both extending and dramatically curtailing the sphere of supposed rights.  Further, notice that the document insists that governments destructive of rights ought to be overthrown and replaced with one more suited to protecting individual’s rights.  Well, Lincoln, the man worshiped as  an American demigod, saw to that.  (By the way, if you doubt my description of Lincoln as a demigod, tell me what you think of this compared to this).  The real meat of the “Declaration,” however, is in the train of abuses committed by the King George III and the English Parliament.  I will take selections to further illustrate my case… 1.  ”He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”  Federal violations of state medical marijuana laws, anyone?   2.  ”He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. ”  The original US Congress had about one member for every 50,000 citizens in the country, which provided for at least a somewhat adequate and accurate representation of constituents’ interests, but now the proportion is about one representative for every 800,000 citizens–How can a single person possibly represent 800,000 people and their disparate interests and opinions properly?   3. “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”  How about this anti-immigration (couched as anti-illegal immigration, but really just a guttural dislike of  anyone deemed “non-American”…although, as I hope I’m showing, the most anti-American people are those who fit the intellectual pattern of the status quo, including the anti-immigration crowd) movement?   4.  ”He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”  Does this one really need comment, or should I simply list off all of the oppressive regulatory offices our State has created in the past 100 years?  5/6/7.  These are really big ones, and deserve their own section:  ”He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. |  He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.  |  He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

Okay, I know, I know–if you’re a Neocon, you’re hyperventilating and about to go into some kind of severe shock, but don’t worry!…Yes, Thomas Jefferson and the Founders were entirely opposed to standing armies (armies which are always on active duty as opposed to militias which are only called to duty in time of conflict) and the standing army is the bastion of the Republicrat political machine, without which we would all inexplicably be speaking German, Russian, Chinese, or some other language aside from our own glorious version of English.  But try to move past that ridiculous and life-long unchallenged assumption for a moment–What are the costs (ALL the costs) of maintaining a standing army?  Our treasury expends oceans of money of maintaining our global empire, to the tune of 1 TRILLION dollars a year.  Further, and more important, is the fact that a standing army exists purely to protect the interests of the State which wields it as a weapon against all opponents, foreign and domestic.  Jefferson famously stated that ‘When the people fear the government, they have tyranny, and when the government fears the people, they have liberty.’  Why on Earth, then, would we forsake the tremendous blessings of liberty to protect the very agent of its destruction, the State?  Instead, we should reject the rule of insane, power-hungry Presidents like our past…oh, I dunno, 18!  (though perhaps I unjustly malign Eisenhower, Ford, and Carter) and instead entirely dismantle the wretched, corrupt, and entirely immoral military State?  As to numbers 6 and 7, consider the extent to which our latest two presidents have supposedly deferred to “The Generals,” or “The Experts,” rather than civilian authorities in making not merely tactical decisions, but general foreign policy decisions.  Shouldn’t we instead follow Ron Paul’s advice and maintain a commanding civilian presence in our military leadership?  That is, after all, why the Constitution directs a civilian officer (the President) to also be Commander-in-Chief.  Further, consider the terribly destructive and pointless Korean War and the current illegal and immoral war in Libya–Are not those conflicts examples of presidents attempting to make political entities other than the United States (i.e the UN and NATO, respectively) the arbiters of American foreign policy? Okay, back to other topics:  8.  ”For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:”  Protective tariffs, anyone?    9.  ”For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”  What about the Federal Reserve’s constant devaluation of the dollar, producing dramatic and constant rises in consumer prices–a functional TAX on all spending done by each one of us?  Who among you are really concerned about reigning in this illegal, immoral, uneconomical monster?  10.  ”For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:”  Wasn’t O-Bombs-Ya supposed to be closing Guantanamo Bay?   And finally, 11.  ”For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”

Surely someone must hear the ring of Obamacare in this charge against Parliament.  After all, what is the mandate to purchase healthcare but asserting the “power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever?”  It is merely one of the latest and most egregious links in a long chain which has been being forged by statist leaders at least since the days of the Great Tyrant, Lincoln.   What, then, do we celebrate this Independence Day?  Do we celebrate any real and properly-maintained tradition of limited government of the people, by the people, for the people?, or do we celebrate a sham–a hoax of faulty historical memory and an irresponsibly lax political culture which has let the true legacy of the American people wither and die, scorned even by those who think they are most connected to it?  Unfortunately, NRA membership and a Tea Party voting record and not sufficient to produce true patriots, much less valiant defenders of liberty.  No, a much deeper, more honest philosophical change in the hearts and minds of everyone who has supported any of the positions (or any similar positions) attacked above, is absolutely necessary to restore any semblance of respectable American political traditions.  A true Revolution is needed, a new Revolution.  In any case, it’s high time we stopped acting like our society holds sacred the ideas of Jefferson, Adams, and Washington–the ideas and ideals of liberty.  It’s high time we fight the new fight, against an enemy virtually inconceivable to the Founders.  The modern Leviathan is a monster greater and more dangerous enemy to Man than has ever before been known, and it must be slain. *EDIT*:  If you found this post thought-provoking, consider Gary North’s wonderful arguments against the actions of the Founders, as well.

This entry was posted on 4. July 2011 at 11:25 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.