By Richard Engle

Throughout history, governments act as the tyrant more often than not. This act is especially egregious. It compares with Roe v. Wade, but in ways it is worse. It is worse in that this decision is an effective conspiracy of three branches of general government against the people and against their sovereign states. Any branch could have stopped it, yet every branch upheld it. Worse, is how it was upheld. There is now no mandate to buy. Instead, there is now a tax.

We are all too accustomed to paying taxes, so we can oft accommodate ourselves to submit to a tax. But what is this a tax upon? It is not on income, no, not really. What rate, what percentage? It is assessed on everyone regardless of income and then exempted for certain persons; therefore it is not a rate of tax on income. It is not a property tax for you need not have property to be assessed it. It is not on your commercial activities as they ruled the commerce clause does not apply. It is a tax on your very being! A tax on the breath you breathe, a tax on the blood flowing through your veins, a tax on your living soul! This is not a tax. It is a slavery!

It is only a little slavery, but it is slavery. Upon the right to be, upon the fact of existence you are assessed this "tax." Next year they raise the tax, then what? We accept the little indenture and we find we have a greater servitude owed. And greater, and greater till we owe what we could never pay and we beg forgiveness for what? We bow and scrape and beg and plead that we may be forgiven a debt which exceeds our entire livelihood? It's not that bad. Truly it is not. Not yet.

Nor was tea that high priced. Nor was bedding the red coats in our homes that inconvenient. Nor was any level of tyranny so high that we were in such chains and bondage that escape was made impossible. Only when escape is yet possible is it feasible.

Only when the end is foreseen is it avoidable.

You may tax my stuff, but you may not tax me! My being! My heart and soul and breath and brain, you may not tax me! It is not constitutional, as we amended the document to prohibit "involuntary servitude" and I volunteer not. If you Repeal that amendment and "Replace" it with language that says you may -- I will yet resist. As those who resisted slavery of old, the fact that it was "constitutional" made it not right. It is tyranny! It is to be violated as every tyrant and act of tyranny is to be violated. The tyrant considers not the role of government to secure the rights of the people to life, liberty and property. The tyrant considers what will improve his position, power and wealth. We have all seen the Gadsden flag, designed by Gen. Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina as the flag of the Marines of our Continental forces fighting against the tyranny of Britain. A rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike with the phrase "DON'T TREAD ON ME." Really? Are we a venomous beast prepared to strike? To strike with deadly poison? This sounds violent. There are but three options in response to tyranny.

You may comply. You may suggest that appeasement will save the innocent from bloodshed. Did that work? Ever? I mentioned Roe v. Wade. Did submission save the innocent? I say not. Never has acquiescence saved the innocent. Not in all of human history has submission to oppression succeeded in rescuing those who would suffer under it. Nor will it today.

You may oppose them peaceably. This is the best option and often works. We may organize and vote and organize again and vote again. We may call upon them to act and insist they do so. We may change those governing at every level and then change them again. We may change the leadership of every institution, including our political parties, our corporate boards, and our churches; and then do so again. When action fails to be bold enough and swift enough we may rally and protest, publish and broadcast and we may do so again and again. This highest and best option is also the hardest to engage and longest to endure. This option requires resolve, determination and must carry consequence. We tell ourselves that we have the opportunity to constitutionally change government, and we do. So long as we do not say that "life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery!" The option of bloodshed is revulsion. The premise of victory an absurdity.

To resort to the sword is a last resort and far from proper in our lifetimes. But to the tyrant the sword is an ever present option. If we say that violent opposition is never proper then we guarantee ultimate loss. If we say that violent opposition is never proper then we condemn the patriots who gave us our nationhood. Our founding fathers felt violent opposition was to be avoided, and victory unlikely. They also knew that it was possible and keeping that option, well sheathed, was the great opportunity for Britain to resolve the issues peaceably. Unfortunately for those who lost lives and loved ones they did not avail themselves that opportunity. Do we know that we can oppose this act? Do we know that there are enough of us to change these circumstances? Do we have the courage to tell those in the Oklahoma state legislature that they must not comply? Do we insist that they say "NULL" over this despotism? Do we rally behind the mediocre politicians this year with the caveat that they repeal (and not replace) or we will rally again against them? And against their successors, and theirs, until every vestige of this act and the other acts against our God given rights are abolished? I say, "YES!" I say we can. I say we must.

I say that I will. With or without assistance I will oppose tyranny. I will not live peaceably with tyranny, and I will not leave! To live in liberty is to live. To live otherwise is slavery. Slavery is death while breathing. I prefer not to breathe unless breathing the fine free air of liberty! You may say that I have called on the finest acts of those who fought for our nation's freedom, and done so in an extreme manner. You may think that it is not all that bad. I say it is far worse than they faced. They fought a tax imposed without representation. Who imposed this tax? A court imposed it saying it was not a fine for failure to fulfill a mandate but a tax on every man, woman and child in the land.

They said it was a tax which will be abated on the good graces of bureaucrats who will decide for us if we have obliged them properly by buying a product with the adequate features to appease them. They may amend the requirements of this product, which may or may not be available on the open market (I tell you it will not be) from time to time as they may decide. Is this not a tax without representation? On every level, in every comparison, those ruling over us in Washington City have imposed upon us obligations and impositions which would have made King George pale with concern for the security of his life. Are those ruling over us afraid for their lives today? No. Are they even afraid for their livelihoods? I think perhaps so. I pray that it is enough.