Ran across this somewhere,don't remember where exactly but it don't matter none, I saved the link. I can't say I agree with all of it but there isn't much I disagree with. There are 10 points listed but there could be a lot more and I bet among us we could think of most of them.
1. The refusal to assent to law:
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

These are just a couple of excerpts from the beginning of the list of grievances that set the tone for a criticism of rule by federal force, rather than rule by local law. Currently, we have seen an official elimination of the 4th Amendment in Indiana, which is a clear precedent-setting ruling to say that the State now believes that it owns the property and person of its citizens. TSA groping and sexual harassment anywhere it deems fit, public school surveillance, and a plethora of other federal initiatives have created a top-down managed society promoted through federal grants. These agencies such as the TSA actually believe they rule supreme over the states and sovereign citizens. This is perhaps most pronounced in the federal intervention over the legalization of medical marijuana. We now have a textbook tyranny in America, which operates with two separate definitions of legality: impunity for those in control, and an ever-increasing rule book whereby average citizens are likely to be in violation of something at any given time, and are stripped of their right of representative self-governance.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/10_Wa...0/0/0/Y/M.html