Death by Alphabet--Why Tea Parties Won't Work

Independent Individualist ^ | 5/18/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

Death by Alphabet--Why Tea Parties Won't Work

I am certainly not opposed to the so-called Tea-Party Movement, and if wishes would work, I would wish them success. Unfortunately, wishes do not work, and either will the Tea-Pary Movement. There is one real danger in the Tea Parties, which I'm afraid are giving too many people a false hope of changing things in American politics, and of course giving those participating a false sense of "doing something."

If I were to characterize the Tea-Party movement, I believe all of the specific issues addressed could be summarized as a movement to restore a Constitutionally limited government. What none of the Tea-Partiers seem to understand is that nothing short of a total revolution could possibly make that happen. Personally, like Robert Ringer, I'm not convinced Constitutional government is ideal, but it would sure be better than what we have now--but it cannot happen politically.

In fact, I do not think Tea-Partiers have an inkling of what it would take to restore a Constitutionally limited government in America, or how totally removed from that concept America's government is today.

Let me illustrate. The following are all huge Federal Government agencies:

BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives--Justice)
BATTT (Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade--Treasury)
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)
DOC (Department of Commerce)
DOE (Department of Energy)
DOI (Department of the Interior)
DOL (Department of Labor)
DOT (Department of Transportation)
ED (US department of education)
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
HHS (Health and Human Services)
ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission)
NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)
EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)
FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
FTC (Federal Trade Commission)
HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
IRS (Internal Revenue Service)
ITA (International Trade Administration)
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy)
OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration)
SBA (Small Business Administration)
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)
USDA (Department of Agriculture)

Every one of these bureaucratic agencies is unconstitutional.

There is no Constitutional authority for any one of these agencies, with the possible exception of the ICC. So long as any of these agencies exist, there can be no Constitutionally limited government in this country, and quite frankly, until I see a serious demand for the elimination of every single one of these agencies, I do not believe it is Constitutionally limited government the Tea-Partiers really want.

ABC Death of Freedom

There is no aspect of any individual's life that this alphabet soup of oppressive agencies does not touch. Your health, your food, your home, your work, your family, your entertainment, your travel, your money, your investments, are all regulated and controlled by these agencies, which employ literally millions of unelected agents and bureaucrats, who write and enforce "regulations" which have all the force of law. Are you worried about who gets elected? Who gets elected is almost irrelevant. Your entire life is governed by government functionaries you've never even heard names of, much less voted for.

When one begins to investigate the extent to which individual liberty has been totally abridged in this country it becomes apparent oppression of Americans by their government exceeds in every way any oppression suffered by the American colonists under the rule of England before the Revolution. Why have freedom loving Americans not revolted long before now? In an odd way, it is because most Americans are not fully aware of their oppression. It is kept impersonal and largely hidden, but that may be about to change.

It Really Is About The Children

In my article, "Our Prussian ``Public`` Schools," I explained how public education came to this country, and is nothing but a tool of the government to control the minds of children and produce useful citizens for the coming totalitarian socialist state. As that intention has become more obvious, more and more parents have become aware of just what public schools really are. It is interesting to me that while government oppression can go unnoticed in so many other areas of people's lives, when it is about their children, they notice.

The homeschool movement is largely a result of the awareness of government intrusion into the most personal part of peoples' lives, their homes, families, and children. But the homeschool movement is now beginning to be noticed by the government, which in this country has mostly been tolerant of it. I believe that a clash between the government's control of education and individual's desire to protect their children from that control will ultimately be the point of contention that may well bring revolution to this country.

Not In The Same House

Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld, in his article, "Homeschooling and Socialism," points out that homeschooling and socialism do not mix. Socialism cannot tolerate parents being in control of their children's education, and socialism is now the dominate political force in this country.

It is not against the law in this country to homeschool children--yet. In socialist countries, homeschooling cannot be tolerated, and as countries become more socialistic, homeschooling becomes less tolerated. Homeschooling has been outlawed in Germany since the Nazis were in power, and those laws have never been rescinded. Homeschooling is about to be criminalized in Sweden. Now in England, "Criminal Background Checks Part of Draconian Law Proposed for Homeschoolers." It is also beginning in the US, as this story, "New Hampshire Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school," and this, "CA Judge Orders NO Homeschooling!," attest. [This order has apparently been reversed--for now.]

The following is just an opinion, and the details about when these things will happen are conjecture--but socialism and freedom to control one's own children's education cannot co-exist, and a conflict is inevitable.

"The Coming War against Home Schooling" by Brad Morrison.

"For the Teacher's Unions Home schoolers are THE Enemy. This will be the administration next campaign move. Heed my warning friends, control of our children's education is about to come under withering fire. This administration and congress will be moving this year to outlaw home schooling.

"Recently home schooling has boomed. In many parts of the country flat enrollment numbers in public schools is directly attributable to home schooling. I won't discuss the ironclad logic why this reaction on the part of parents is a good, laudable and positive trend to end the tyranny and political myopia of the public school system. It is just necessary to recognize that to the Teacher's Unions home schooling is public Enemy #1. The coming attempt to reelect Barack Obama shows that the war is on. They haven't gone public as of yet but this year is the beginning of the full-blown campaign.

"Look for the first few leaks of damning stories about home schooling. They will start by demonizing the movement. Then they will move rapidly to tax it, and outlaw it in practice if not in law. Before the next election home schoolers will see a world on the horizon where school boards and local school administration have to certify their credentials. Homes will be subject to inspection and regulation by OSHA and the EPA. The list of obvious and viscous options are too depressing to outline."

I suspect there will be many more agencies than OSHA and the EPA used in the "War On Homeschooling," (WOH), which just may be the war that brings the revolution. I seriously doubt the Tea-Partiers will bring about that revolution, but Homeschoolers just might.

—Reginald Firehammer (05/17/10)

[Hank Kerchief]

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

Hank

[K-oneTexas]

I liked the article. However I disagree with the premise.

I think the Tea Parties are doing good and will continue to do so. Even if they receive only fleeting negative national press.

Why? Because thy are having an impact and being heard locally. Locally is the key to getting the message out. People listen most closely to those around them, not those hundreds of miles away.

I think the local grassroots activism of the Tea Parties are their strongest tool.

[nmh]

Thankfully it is NOT true that the Tea Party effort is NOT working. The Tea Party effort is alive, well and THRIVING!!! It’s called old fashioned Democracy at it’s best.

[AndyJackson]

There is no Constitutional authority for any one of these agencies

This is simply untrue. We may regret the expansion of the power of the bureaucracy and the abdication of so much governmental authority to regulatory law, it may have been very bad policy and exceedingly wasteful of scarce resources, as we are discovering, but it is not unconstitutional.

[rarestia]

Unfortunately, wishes do not work, and either will the Tea-Pary Movement.

The author did me a favor. When someone writes an article and can't even get out of the gate without a grammatical gaffe, I'm not going to give them the pleasure of reading their article.

[Maelstorm]

Homeschooling is the ultimate protest and it provides a degree of freedom not only to teach your children as you see fit but also to increase the chances that your values will be passed on.

[SueRae]

Good reading!

ping

[George from New England]

Bump — good list of the federal agencies that have to go.

[muddler]

What none of the Tea-Partiers seem to understand is that nothing short of a total revolution could possibly make that happen.

It had better work or this could be our future.

[Uncle Miltie]

This is a good shopping list.

Keep:

FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

Kill:

BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—Justice)
BATTT (Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade—Treasury)
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)
DOC (Department of Commerce)
DOE (Department of Energy)
DOI (Department of the Interior)
DOL (Department of Labor)
DOT (Department of Transportation)
ED (US department of education)
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
HHS (Health and Human Services)
ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission)
NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)
EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)
FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
FTC (Federal Trade Commission)
HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
IRS (Internal Revenue Service)
ITA (International Trade Administration)
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy)
OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration)
SBA (Small Business Administration)
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)
USDA (Department of Agriculture)

My world is so much better now!

[Excellence]

bfl

[Huck]

I do not think Tea-Partiers have an inkling of what it would take to restore a Constitutionally limited government

This is the problem right here. Same problem all conservatives have---they think the Constitution offers up limited government. That's simply not true. What the Constitution offers is ever-expanding government, with supreme power. It's been this way ever since it was enacted.

Every time I hear someone talk about "returning to the Constitution" I just roll my eyes and laugh. We are UNDER the Constitution right now.

"If only they would follow it", people will say. They do follow it, according to the law. They get to decide what is or isn't one of their "implied powers." This too has been going on since the Washington administration.

In short, the Constitution allows what we see before us. It's a combination of the general terms used---"general welfare, necessary and proper, establish domestic tranquility) and the unaccountable federal judiciary.

In short, the Constitution is critically flawed.

[Lurker]

but it is not unconstitutional.

Actually it is. Run along and read Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution and then get back to us. Just because SCOTUS 'says' it's ok, doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

They're wrong far more often than they're right.

[BornToBeAmerican]

I agree with you 100%.

If the Tea Party movement does nothing but “Stop the bleeding” it will have done enough.

As with any ER case, the bleeding must be stopped before anything can be done to ‘fix’ the injury

[BornToBeAmerican]

In short, the Constitution is critically flawed. You are wrong my friend. It is not critically flawed and we are not governened by it now. Rather we are being governend by "Social Justice" uder the guise of the Consitution. Tell me where (line and paragraph) it is flawed and I will tell you why it isn't

[avacado]

" In short, the Constitution allows what we see before us. It's a combination of the general terms used---"general welfare,..."

Actually the US Constitution is very specific about the general welfare to the point of enumerating quite clearly what defines the general welfare. See Article I Section 8.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The Whiskey Rebellion.

If Congress in 1790 didn't have the explicit Constitutional authority to tax Whiskey, then why did they?

These were the men who wrote the Constitution, and yet they approved a tax that the Constitution did not give them explicit authority to raise.

The Barbary Pirates

If the President of the United States must have a declaration of war in order to send troops to battle, then what is to be made of Jefferson ordering Naval and Marine forces to invade a sovereign nation (Tripoli)?

It seems to me that those who do not agree that the Constitution is the best form of government ( Personally, like Robert Ringer, I'm not convinced Constitutional government is ideal) are often the ones who seem to think it should be followed to (what they view is) the letter.

The Constitution was written because the very strict Articles of Confederation were not allowing for effective governance.

In fact, he forgets an important clause altogether:

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Elect a majority that will ZERO OUT their funding.
(I suspect few bureaucrats will stick around to enforce rules and regulations on a volunteer basis, no matter what Michelle Obama thinks)

[Cicero]

Well, I fail to see how else to handle it.

The gradual growth of the bureaucracy suggested by all those initials has been the work of Democrats moving “forward” and Republicans doing nothing to roll it back again. FDR, LBJ, and others keep adding new bureaucracies on top of old, and not even Ronald Reagan was willing to take the heat necessary to undo any of it.

Not only did the Republicans fail to abolish such monstrosities as the Department of Education, but it proved incapable even of defunding NPR.

Which means we either need to completely transform the Republican Party or we need to replace it. Which, remains to be seen.

We don’t need a new third party, but we may need a new second party if the Republican party is dying or dead, as it seems to be.