The Houston Chronicle notes a growing citizen backlash against internal checkpoints dozens of miles away from any international border:
These travelers are among the latest to join what appears to be an informal alliance of people, possibly into the hundreds, recording their encounters at Border Patrol checkpoints that are not at international ports of entry but instead on the many roads located within 100 miles of borders and coasts and that connect the regions with the rest of the nation. There are 34 such permanent checkpoints along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.
The aggressive and confrontational attitude of the Border Patrol at these checkpoints is telling. They would claim they’re simply doing a difficult job, in order to (*cough*) “secure the borders.” But every American ought to ask why they should support such invasive (and arguably unConstitutional) activities, when the FedGov writ large seems determined not only to legitimize the mass invasion of illegal immigrants, but to encourage additional waves? What then, exactly, is this particular assertion of authority expected to achieve, other than further conditioning of the American citizenry to meekly comply with every demand of “your papers, please?”
Add to this sort of official abuse…
— Her Hillariness’s lengthy withholding and deletion of emails that were under a Congressional subpoena (don’t try this at home, average citizen!) as the latest example of a lack of accountability for those in power
— Transparency in government is increasingly hard to achieve
— Harry Reid’s unusually transparent remark that political lies don’t matter so long as the opposing candidate doesn’t win (How’s that for confirmation into how our political class thinks?)
— The absolute wrecking ball that government and financial companies’ abuses and mismanagement took to the legitimacy of our nation’s housing title system
…just to name but a few of the most glaring or recent examples, and it’s easy to see why more and more Americans are concluding (rightly) that the Federal Government is merely a protection racket for the well-connected, and has little, if anything, still to do with protecting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for the average citizen.
The Instapundit (who often hints the return of tar and feathers might corral some of this public misconduct) recently made a comment that he was finding it harder and harder to argue against hanging politicians from lampposts. One reader replied something along the lines of “I didn’t know we were supposed to be arguing against it.” Our ruling class (they certainly aren’t “public servants,” no matter how much they may loudly claim the mantle) would do well to remember that accountability usually finds a way to resolve itself, even if it takes a while. I’m not talking about tearful public apologies a la “Slick Willie.” I’m talking about real and painful consequences as a result of criminal negligence and/or abuse of the public trust. Leaders can be held accountable by their own integrity (by doing the right thing), by a functioning judicial system (by visibly punishing wrongdoers)… or in the end by overly exasperated subjects who’ve decided they have nothing to lose by trying to take down their tormentors. The more government acts in an abusive and illegitimate manner, and the more we see how there is no “equality before the law” applied to certain powerful people and interests, the more we risk resort to that third option.
As a wise Man once repeatedly said, “He who has ears, let him hear.”