"Government is instituted for the common good, not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men"
-- Samuel Adams; to the Legislature of Massachusetts (Jan. 17, 1794)
In my article titled 'The Snake Oil Peddlers' I naively asked what could be more hypocritical than co-sponsoring legislation and then flip-flopping to decide that the same thing co-sponsored was unconstitutional. Little did I realize that the answer to that retorical question was close at hand. In 2008, the Republican Party Platform included in its plank on property rights:
"At the center of a free economy is the right of citizens to be secure in their property. Every person has the right to acquire, own, use, possess, enjoy, and dispose of private property. That right was undermined by the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, allowing local governments to seize a person’s home or land, not for vital public use, but for transfer to private developers."
Indeed the objection to such is obvious, after all we fought a revolution because of the cronyism between the East India Company and Parliament. As it is described in the book "Three Men of Boston" by John R. Galvan: "At first it was not understood that the tea would bear a tax; in fact, it was assumed there would be no tax. The opposition was based on the monopoly issue; even without the question of a tax, the events in America probably would have taken place. It is attributable to the genius of Adams that he was later able to create and sustain the myth that the battle over teas was a battle over taxes" (P.264).
Strangely, the Boston Tea Party has been appropriated as corruptly as ranch-owner's back-forty may be soon. You see, there are these two brothers whose family business has a subsidiary which brags of "crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta" (1) and they would love to get their crude oil down to Gulf Coast refineries via a third party's oil pipeline. So they started a political movement to bring simpatico politicians into power. While their subversive agents in Congress are busily trying to ramrod the the federal approval through, TransCanada has been busy harassing and coercing the landowners that lie in the the pipeline's path. As one Sue Kelso tells: “Their land agent told us the very first day she met with us, you either take the money or they’re going to condemn the land”(2). Even the stooges contending for the GOP nomination have begun drinking the proverbial kool-aid.
There is a flaw in this un-American scheme though. Amidst the bigots and John Galt wannabees who made the news, there are a lot of down-home good-hearted people who have supported the "Tea Party." And these people tend to be very much in favor of private property rights. In fact, they (as surely do we) find that taking land from Party A and giving it to Party $ is such an unlimited and arbitrary exercise of power, that it resembles the machinations of the old Soviet Union. If the effort is successfull to put every political office up for sale to the highest bidder and the effort to dismantle the Rule of Law, subject to the bidder's demand--such as the Koch Brothers, and their political and media cronies unquestionably want--that assessment would be correct! For what ought we to call an empowered few who control all political and economic activity but a POLITBURO!