Timely, since it is Independence Day tomorrow.
I reread, as I am wont to do at this time of year, the document that broke the proverbial camel's back. If you've never really read it, please do. If you have, give it another look. I was stunned at how history has circled back to repeat itself.
This point will largely be lost on the bulk of the American public. Partly because most people simply don't care about history; partly because they are largely undereducated in the first place, and partly because the large numbers of apologists out there will quickly spin the words to try and prop up their position.
I borrow from the venerable Founders when I say, "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
Anyone remember HR 64 (Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010)?
"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."
I bet Jan Brewer could tell you more about this than I could. Or any other law enforcement officer near the Arizona border.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers…"
Oh yes. All those conveniently don't-have-to-be-confirmed-by-the-Senate "czars" of his. A veritable crapton of bureaucracy.
"[…] giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation for imposing Taxes on us without our Consent…"
After all, it was supposed to be a mandate, not a tax, right? That's what we were told….
"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our […] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jursidiction over us. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and our correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
I read an article linked on Facebook by an acquaintance of mine. I've known her since high school, where we were friends, but with time the connection has weakened considerably. I haven't seen her in person nor spoken with her in over 25 years. I gather from her postings that her evolution continued in the direction we were taking at the time; she's a decent woman, not a political sort, and I suppose meant well by the posting. But the article, an op-ed by the CEO of a rather ubiquitous company, amounted to another "can't we all just get along plea," dropped in view in order to persuade the more moderate among us to abandon their well-deserved anger and disappointment with the status quo in the midst of a very important and highly contentious election year.
I'm not buying it. I've appealed to those around me, friend, acquaintance, and perfect stranger. I've had battles of wits, wars of words, polite conversations, and the time to form observations based on nothing more than watching their reactions to stimuli. And I've come to the conclusion that no, we can't all just "get along."
While I've no desire to purposely alienate people, neither will I sit back and remain silent simply to avoid giving offense. I'm willing to debate politely and logically, and I'm willing to listen and learn when there is something to be taught. But I will not stand for the abdication of responsibility, the perpetuation of falsehood, and the dissemination of disinformation. And if my speaking up – regardless of the forum in which it takes place – causes me to lose said acquaintance, then I too will acquiesce in the necessity and hold them as enemies in war.
And I might not rescind that in peacetime. The worst crimes against humanity seem to happen when those most able to prevent them are idle and content. (Or "fat and happy;" you pick.)
By the way, if you came here not for a poli-sci lecture, but for my analysis of the recent SCOTUS miscarriage of justice, you can pretty much sum up my feelings in this brilliant piece by Mark Steyn. Or this most excellent summation by Thomas Sowell. Steyn uses his trademark sarcasm; Sowell, his logic. Both tell it like it is. Me, I'm still so fucking angry I can't write about it.