Actually, yes he did, here's the comparisons, from the Declaration - see if you can tell the difference between George III and King Putt:
* He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
* He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
* He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
* He {intends to keep} among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
* He {intends to render} the military independent of and superior to civil power.
* He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws...
* For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...
* For depriving us in many {future} cases, of the benefits of trial by jury...
* For ... abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
* He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers ... savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
* In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.