![]() |
|
Tags for This Article:
Congress (2697) Government (2534) Justice (1122) Religion (993) Law (894) God (671) Congress (455) Taxes (393) Taxpayers (163) Equal (108) Transformation (98) Society-Culture-People (66) Representation (63)
|
Add to My Group
Even before the Declaration of Independence, the phrase of “No Taxation Without Representation” echoed among the American colonists as they were struggling to shrug-off the rule imposed by England: “No taxation without representation” was a slogan in the period 1763-1775 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen colonies. The colonists complained that taxes were imposed by Parliament without the consent of the colonists, which violated the traditional Rights of Englishmen dating back from the Magna Carta. The point was that the colonies had no representation in Parliament; the British responded that they were “virtually” represented. The Americans said these “virtual representatives” knew nothing about America. The Americans rejected the Stamp Act 1765 (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on imports at the Boston Tea Party. When Great Britain began to crack down on the illegal activities performed by the colonists, the colonists formed militias and seized control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low), but always on the decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In February, 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactory provided for the imperial defense and the upkeep of imperial officers. 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] By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.[2] LINK The above statement which the American Colonists repeatedly alleged is now as germane today as it was in 1763. The American people no longer are “represented” by their government, but are ordered by a Congress and Presidency to part with their hard-earned money with virtually little or no actual representation. Many will say that’s not true, that our elected officials and Congress represent the people, but in today’s society, it’s apparent that our government only represents the wealthy, special interest groups, and above all, corporations - which have assumed an almost God-like influence in the governance of this nation. The United States, contrary to what President Bush and the religious-right allege, is not a “Christian Nation” - and in fact was spelled-out by the United States Government when the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797:
Further, if we examine the Constitution and the history of when “God” appeared in our government, it was far after the Founding Fathers had passed from this earth. The below represents a very short synopsis of God and the Constitution, and is extremely telling: (Excerpts)
Even more fascinating is that the “Pledge of Allegiance” was not written by the government, but was in fact an advertising tool to help a youth group sell flags:
Fast-forward to modern times, and the principle of separation of church and state was well spelled out by our own government, and the below quote is from USINFO.STATE.GOV:
http://justanothercoverup.com/ I am nothing more than a patriotic American that is doing whatever I can to further the cause of democracy, the rule of law, and am absolutely outraged on how the Bush administration is defying our Congress, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Footnote: I write in a style that I believe is appropriate in today's world where we can't trust the Mainstream News Media, and rather than concentrating on one article alone, which may or may not receive the exposure and emphasis it should, I prefer to meld several relevant stories together, that each taken alone may not expose the entire situation, but when taken-in as a whole, tend to give the reader a better understanding of the subject. One article or story alone does not represent the "Big Picture" - but when several are effectively tied-together it often reveals a trend or broader view of the subject matter that is important to completely understand any given situation. http://justanothercoverup.com/
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|