Has Government Grown Beyond The Consent Of The Governed? ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

Politics

Has Government Grown Beyond The Consent Of The Governed?

Published

on

“Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”

~ Ronald Reagan

 

Forty years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke passionately and eloquently at his first Inaugural address about the size of government. A large part of his speech that day was a genuine concern about an out-of-control federal government and how his new administration would work to reduce that growth and decrease regulations. As much as Reagan did during the 1980’s to try and rein in government and allow for more personal independence to live life as each individual saw fit we have seen government balloon to an even more expansive behemoth.

America is at a critical point in history. This republic, as it currently stands, sits at a precipice. With a $30 trillion national debt that continues to grow at an alarming rate, with no end in sight, and a new Biden administration eager to grow government bureaucracy and spend like drunken sailors, we must ask some serious questions.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: Because of Joe Biden, it’s that simple

Has government grown beyond the consent of the governed? How much government does a nation need? What percentage of the population believes that more government is the answer to all that ails us? These questions require us to engage in critical discussions as a country to decide our fate. Failing to have a rational conversation about the size and scope of government only increases our odds of destroying America.

Our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to escape from the tyranny of an overgrown government bureaucracy and create a constitutional representative republic. They intended for limited government that allowed people to live their own lives freely without government bureaucracy restricting their ability to earn a living. The federal government was limited in the powers it had. States were given the primary power to run their governments as they saw fit.

Over time the federal government has grown. Under FDR and the New Deal, government bureaucracy ballooned in an effort to put people to work and address the economic hardships brought on by the Great Depression. This was a real shift towards big central government planning and a diminishing of the self-governing independence our republic had been built on.

Then as the 1960’s unfolded, LBJ and “The Great Society” programs added another layer of increasing government bureaucracy. It created such programs as Medicare and Medicaid and greatly increased entitlement spending and social programs to combat poverty and racial injustice. It made the food stamp program permanent and created more federal agencies and bureaucracy. As history shows us, when new government programs and agencies are established, they never sunset and go away. They continue to grow and need to be fed more taxpayer money.

The 1970’s brought more government bureaucracy and created new agencies such as OSHA, the EPA, and a new Department of Education. The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, combining 22 different federal departments and agencies into a unified and integrated cabinet agency. The list goes on and on. More government bureaucracy with more taxpayer money needed to run Washington D.C.

Have the American people grown increasingly weary of this bloated federal government? A recent Rasmussen Reports polling survey conducted back in November of 2020 seems to indicate they have indeed. It found that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with Reagan’s Inaugural address that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Just 27% disagreed and 14% were undecided. Noteworthy, that is the highest level of agreement on that question since Rasmussen Reports started asking it back in 2008. What’s even more interesting is that even 50% of Democrats agree with Reagan’s statement. The percentages are higher for those unaffiliated with a party (58%) and Republicans (70%).

In another polling survey conducted by Gallup, they asked Americans if the federal government had too much power, the right amount, or too little. The most recent data was back in September of 2019 and found 56% of the respondents felt the federal government had too much power compared to 38% who felt it was about the right amount. A year earlier that percentage was 53%. Since 2005, the percentage of Americans who say the federal government has too much power has been at 50% or higher. So clearly, a majority of the American people have at least a sense that government has grown too expansive.

Has government grown beyond the consent of the governed? The argument can be made it most definitely has. While there is a percentage of Americans who believe that government is the solution to all of our problems there seems to be enough people still of the belief that too much government is a problem that needs to be addressed.

This shouldn’t be a right or left issue. This should be a genuine concern no matter what your political views may be. As government expands, freedom and liberty continues to contract. We have seen this truth play out over the last several decades of our republic.

The time to rein in government is now front and center. The American people need to have an open and honest conversation about the continued growth of government. It’s time for the governed to reassert their role as the boss. If Americans truly value their independence and self-reliance then it is imperative to alter this course we are on. Failure to do our due diligence will ultimately result in the loss of our constitutional republic and place us back in the chains of tyranny.

 

“A free people cannot shift their responsibility for them to the government. Self-government means self-reliance.”

~ Calvin Coolidge

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Michael was born and raised in Wisconsin and is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin with a BA-History. He started writing a blog in January 2016 called, Conservative Thinker, and has written about politics, foreign policy, economics, and social issues with a historical perspective. He resides in Cullman, AL and enjoys hiking, photography, and traveling in his spare time. You can find him on Twitter and Instagram @buckyboymike and follow his blog at www.conservativethinker.net.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



News

In-N-Out Burger Serves Customers, not San Francisco

Published

on

In-N-Out
Photo credit: Andrew Weibert

In-N-Out Burger just served San Francisco an everything burger, animal style. It’s heartening to see an iconic restaurant chain stand up to government overreach—and in an ultra-liberal enclave, to boot.

Here’s how it went down. San Francisco issued an edict to force bars and restaurants to verify customers’ COVID vaccination papers before allowing entry.

In response, In-N-Out Burger dutifully posted the city’s vaccination requirement on its windows. This placed the onus where it belongs—on their customers. This is as far as a private company need go.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: Because of Joe Biden, it’s that simple

However, San Francisco sees things much differently. They closed down the city’s only In-N-Out Burger location, on Fisherman’s Wharf. As a result, the burger chain issued this statement:

“Local regulators informed us that our restaurant Associates must actively intervene by demanding proof of vaccination and photo identification from every Customer…. We refuse to become the vaccination police for any government. We fiercely disagree with any government dictate that forces a private company to discriminate against customers who choose to patronize their business.”

San Francisco’s beef shouldn’t be with In-N-Out Burger—it should be with its unvaccinated citizens. If the city chooses to order an unconstitutional vaccination requirement for bars and restaurants, they should enforce it, not the bars and restaurants. They’re private businesses, not COVID cops.

Burger bouncers

In-N-Out Burger trains their associates to cheerfully ask customers if they’d like to add fries and shakes to their meals, not to question them about controversial vaccination mandates. Additionally, they shouldn’t be required to make their associates act as bouncers to eject unvaccinated customers.

As an aside, America is one of the only nations on Earth that requires vaccination passports. Most if not all other countries require immunity passports, which include the vaccinated and those who are unvaccinated yet have degrees of natural immunity after being infected with the coronavirus.

The San Francisco In-N-Out Burger mess perfectly illustrates what should be happening all over America. Private business is not an arm of local, state or federal government. We’re all dealing with the pandemic—why compound the problem by attempting to force private businesses to enforce governmental mandates?

It makes one wonder how San Francisco leaders failed to see this coming. Can any serious person imagine cheerful, smiling, In-N-Out Burger associates making effective burger bouncers? It’s ridiculous for any city to expect restaurant employees to provide vaccination enforcement.

This smacks of more than mere incompetence. Did the city truly expect bars and restaurants to comply? If so, this seems like autocratic (and dangerous) arrogance.

If San Francisco wants to enforce vaccination inspections, they should do it themselves on the sidewalk in front of bars and restaurants. Closing restaurants that don’t force their employees to act as muscle for the city is poor leadership.

Given In-N-Out Burger’s wild popularity, it’s safe to say that most customers want their locations open. If some side with San Francisco in closing the restaurant and forcing associates to be vaccination police, they can get lesser burgers elsewhere.

Smart business

It’s called freedom. And clearly, it’s in short supply in places like San Francisco. Kudos to In-N-Out Burger for making a stand.

Here’s hoping other private businesses will take heart in In-N-Out Burger’s sound and smart business sense and stand up to one-size-fits-all autocrats. If they do, it’s likely that most of their customers will continue supporting them and they may even gain new ones.

Smart and principled businesses take risks for the right reasons. In-N-Out Burger is right to defy San Francisco. Prediction: By refusing to discriminate when serving its customers, they’ll sell even more burgers, fries and shakes in the City by the Bay and in their other 368 locations across America.

Continue Reading

Business

Pandora Papers, a box of trouble for whom?

Published

on

Pandoras box seems to be a well-known metaphor in today’s culture. It is often used to represent unknowingly opening a box of wop-ass. The Greek origins are a little more complex.  Pandora was the first human woman, a gift from the gods. She was made from earth to be lovely as a goddess. With the gift of speech to tell lies, and the mind and nature of a treacherous dog. She was given a golden crown of animals and sea creatures. Pandora was blessed with grace, desire and caring to weaken her limbs.

Pandora was the first woman to live among mortal men, first bride and great misery. She was destined to live with men in times of plenty and to desert them in hard times.  Her name means both “she who gives all gifts” and “she who was given all gifts”. In the mythology she opened a jar that belonged to her husband that contained every misery that affects man to today, but managed to close it before hope was able to escape the jar.

Which brings us to the latest document leak from the International Consortium of investigative Journalists or ICIJ. This is the latest of leaks following the Panama papers and the Paradise papers. ICIJ claims this is the largest leak of tax haven information ever. The 11.9 million financial records include information on 330 politicians and high level leaders, including 35 country leaders. For two years over 600 journalists from 117 countries helped to follow up leads exposed by the leak.

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: Because of Joe Biden, it’s that simple

Top leaders with homes in Malibu, Monti Carlo, and high rise towers in Dubai. Investments in sugar plantations, polluting factories, and even a hospital. Secret companies and Trusts to hide assets from taxes and their people. ICIJ likes to point out that this money could have been used to help build roads, hospitals, and schools. They also imply the money comes from ill-gotten gains. Pointing out that hiding money is also used during drug smuggling, human trafficking, bribery, and international terrorism.

In an effort to seem like actual investigative journalists they do mention that nothing they were fed was illegal.  They failed to mention that the tax regulations in every one of the countries involved are written by the rich themselves. Mostly by those not uncovered by the Pandora Papers. Something the 600 seemed to have over looked during their two year investigation is any tax avoidance from the United States. Funny thing that.

To find out why you need to look at who the International Consortium of investigative Journalists is and who finances them. It turns out the group was founded in 1997, they claim to take no public funds only donations. Their largest donors happen to be Soros, thru the The Open Society Foundation. Now needless to say Soros is not going to admit what each one of these people did to stop his march towards one world government headed by Soros and company, but we can speculate.

Tony Blair, supported the American action in Afghanistan. King Abdullanh met with and supported Israel. Vladimir Putin would rather not have a one world government telling him how to run Russia. Shakira no stranger to wokeness had the gall to disagree with the Conovirus imprisonment and demanded children be let outside into the sun and air. You can bet that each one of the targets of this dump had somehow displeased those supporting the great reset.

Each one of these thought they had found a beautiful tax haven not knowing it was she who gives all gifts and conversely she who is given all gifts. By selectively revealing that it is worthwhile to spend money to hide income from those who did not earn it is telling. Besides highlighting that taxes are too high for the services provided. Telling that not one American is mentioned. Telling that the “journalists” didn’t discover how politicians in government get rich on civil service salaries. Not one mention of the heads of NGO’s (non-governmental agencies) have found that the poor are very very good for them. How about a peek into how many of the 1.5 million tax exempt organizations in America are just a tax dodge.

We will wait with the patience of Job for the International Consortium of investigative Journalists to do some real investigating.

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Politicrossing
 
Send this to a friend