Governmental Acronyms

The government of United States of America seems to love creating and applying acronyms. What few people realize is that “Government” itself is an acronym.


Bill Clinton once infamously said, “You can’t say you love your country and hate your government.” Not only do I and every other American patriot disagree with Slick Willie’s little pearl of Statist “wisdom,” but I will go so far as to say that, if one truly does love America one must hate the government as it now stands…and, no matter how the truth is obfuscated by acronyms and jargon, that fact is clear and easy to see.

Of course, one must always remember that a criminal is nothing more or less than an individual with destructive and antisocial propensities who cannot raise sufficient capital to mount a successful political campaign. 😉

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

9 Responses to “Governmental Acronyms”

  1. Casey Says:

    Ha Ha! I am commenting all over your posts today! So what is it that you don’t like about the government in its current state? Is it just taxes? Deficit spending? Corrupt politicians? All of the above? I personally don’t like the inability to get anything done. The word “compromise” has completely lost its place in congress. The radical tendencies being shoved down the public’s throat are NOT helping.

  2. jonolan Says:

    To make what would be a book-length reply short, I hate all of the above and the federal government’s growing disregard for the Constitution and the limits it places of the federal government.

  3. jonolan Says:

    To the best of my knowledge there have been no changes to the 10th Amendment or much else, with the ever-argued exception of the Commerce Clause, in the Constitution that explicitly sets the limits of what the federal government can do.

    They’re not changing, amending, or adding to the Constitution; they’re willfully ignoring it.

  4. Casey Says:

    True but that was what they said about the federal reserve bank. It has been scraped twice for being unconstitutional and both times it was resurrected because we realized that we needed it to sustain an ever growing economy.

  5. jonolan Says:

    Firstly, that we believe we need something doesn’t make it right or legal to have it. I could easily say and argue that we need to restore chattel slavery but that wouldn’t make doing so right.

    Secondly, we really don’t need the federal reserve, nor does it really help the economy in the long run. Indeed, it hurts the economy by removing the full consequences of failure, graft, and malfeasance.

  6. Casey Says:

    Yes but that is like saying that because someone purposefully started a fire in a building we should just let all the other people in the building die. The federal reserve bank provides a safety net that protects all the “little people” that are even more harshly affected by bad economic times than the people who cause those times. If we really want to make noise about something, how about the fact that there hasn’t been a single arrest resulting from the recession. Who is being held accountable?

  7. jonolan Says:

    The federal reserve doesn’t protect all the “little people.” It can only be used to affect the interest rates of loans and by extrapolation the rate of lending and available capital on the market. Even that ability, with Wall Street growing more and more divorced from the rest of the economy, is growing more limited.

    All that aside though, it’s still unconstitutional. That doesn’t seem to matter to you though so it’s a moot argument.

    As for the lack of arrests in the recession – It’s hard to arrest people when no crime has been committed or when those who did commit crimes are too many, too small time, and only criminal within state jurisdictions.

  8. Casey Says:

    It is not a completely moot point to me, as far as being unconstitutional. I understand that the argument of having it because without it we would have difficulty doing things like waging war is flimsy. But my point is that the constitution isn’t perfect and in its original form or amended forms, it cannot always protect the people. And even if that isn’t called for as far as some people are concerned, I still think it is important to protect our fellow citizens. Great conversation by the way! I love listening to other peoples’ opinions!

  9. jonolan Says:

    It’s not a matter of perfection, Casey. It is, after all designed to be alterable and there is a long-established legal process for altering it. It’s a matter of the federal government violating it at will, normally with the excuse of “protecting the people” from something, often their own bad luck or failure.

    I’d far rather be protected from the federal government than most of what they claim to want to protect me from, especially since more and more they’re striving to protect me from myself.

    Now here’s the part that is a little twisted in most people’s minds:

    I have a lot less problem when state and local governments do similar things. They’re constitutionally allowed to do so and I can always move to another state or municipality.

Leave a Reply