What is the difference between the behavior of Britain and what Obama is doing..?

What is the difference between the behavior of Britain and what Obama is doing..?

obama smirkingEngland and America did not begin an overt parting of the ways until 1763, more than a century and a half after the founding of the first permanent settlement at Jamestown, Virginia. The colonies had grown vastly in economic strength and cultural attainment, and virtually all had long years of self-government behind them. In the 1760s their combined population exceeded 1,500,000 — a six fold increase since 1700.
In the aftermath of the French and Indian War, Britain needed a new imperial design, but the situation in America was anything but favorable to change. Long accustomed to a large measure of independence, the colonies were demanding more, not less, freedom, particularly now that the French menace had been eliminated.

The British government, fearing that settlers migrating into the new lands would provoke a series of Indian wars, believed that the lands should be opened to colonists on a more gradual basis. Restricting movement was also a way of ensuring royal control over existing settlements before allowing the formation of new ones.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 reserved all the western territory between the Alleghenies, Florida, the Mississippi River and Quebec for use by Native Americans. Thus the Crown attempted to sweep away every western land claim of the 13 colonies and to stop westward expansion.

More serious in its repercussions was the new financial policy of the British government, which needed more money to

So many Questions

So many Questions

support its growing empire. Unless the taxpayer in England was to supply all money for the colonies’ defense, revenues would have to be extracted from the colonists through a stronger central administration, which would come at the expense of colonial self-government.

The first step in inaugurating the new system was the replacement of the Molasses Act of 1733, which placed a prohibitive duty, or tax, on the import of rum and molasses from non-English areas, with the Sugar Act of 1764. This act forbade the importation of foreign rum; put a modest duty on molasses from all sources and levied duties on wines, silks, coffee and a number of other luxury items.

Both the duty imposed by the Sugar Act and the measures to enforce it caused consternation among New England merchants. They contended that payment of even the small duty imposed would be ruinous to their businesses. Merchants, legislatures and town meetings protested the law, and colonial lawyers found in the preamble of the Sugar Act the first intimation of “taxation without representation,” the slogan that was to draw many to the American cause against the mother country.

The last of the measures inaugurating the new colonial system sparked the greatest organized resistance. Known as the “Stamp Act,” it provided that revenue stamps be affixed to all newspapers, broadsides, pamphlets, licenses, leases or other legal documents, the revenue (collected by American customs agents) to be used for “defending, protecting and securing” the colonies.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action. “The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action. “Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals…”

Taxation without representation started the American revolution that founded this country on principles designed to ensure that would not happen again. Tyranny must be resisted – then and now. Today March 3, 2015 has been a day of: “We have a history here — with certain injurious events vowed never to happen again. One, of course was the American revolution; two, an activity similar to Vietnam; Three, the USA’s allied support during a time of war for Israel; four, The Holocaust; five, human bondage and slavery. Yet as I sit here and type I am motivated to shout — How much further would you like us to bend, Mr. President? These vary issues are indeed happening again!

This individual has gone from clown to outright dictator. In more ways than we know this tyrannical fool has imposed his will on Americans — this is not news! What Barack Obama is doing is unconscionable! Where are the voices we voted into office last mid-term election. Moreover, where is your voice.

quote_bottom-e1358301882938

About Jon-Paul

Academia, Constitution, Musicianship, all around Caucasian male, straight, and professes Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life. Guitars -- Classical, Acoustic, A/E, Strat, a real bassist at heart, Les Paul Standard bass.
This entry was posted in Abuse of Power, Amnesty, Congress, Corruption, Family, taxation and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to What is the difference between the behavior of Britain and what Obama is doing..?

  1. thomlucci says:

    Excellent post, Jon-Paul. I will be sharing this with all my red-blooded American friends, and I agree w you 100%!

    Like

  2. thomlucci says:

    Excellent post, Jon-Paul. This one I am going to share with all my red-blooded American friends! And I agree with you 100%!

    Like

Comments are closed.