A citizen’s required reading for July 4th: The Declaration of Independence (with music)

 

A citizen’s required reading for July 4th: The Declaration of Independence (with music)
July 4, 2010 | 12:01 am

Independence Hall in the City of Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was signed

The United States’ Declaration of Independence may well be the most cited yet least read or understood document in American history.

Some have suggested over the years that each responsible U.S. citizen should take the occasion of the Nation’s birthday to read that precious document every year, something like pausing at Thanksgiving to give thanks or at New Year’s to ponder what’s past and ahead.

Obviously, we can’t require that. But The Ticket can facilitate that. So here it is, in its historic entirety. For those who are curious to see how the historic document evolved, the wording refined and trimmed, through several writings, including those funny s’s that look like f’s, they can view side-by-side versions right here.

And for those who’d like a little musical accompaniment, we have a special treat this July 4th. It’s a video version of the anthem performed by one of our favorite singers, a woman with an amazingly crystaline voice who writes her own songs. We met her here as a Ticket follower on Twitter. Her name is Amiena (her music website is here). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWk0dZAyDTA&feature=player_embedded

The final version of the Declaration is right here with paragraphs edited for length for typographical purposes on this modern webpage.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such….

…. is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of….

 

…large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

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 endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

Declaration of IndependenceHe has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton     ###

U.S. And Israel Further Divided: Obama Caves To Muslims, Stabs Ally In The Back Over Nukes Benjamin Netanyahu, more American than Obama, at a 4th of July celebration in Israel

U.S. And Israel Further Divided: Obama Caves To Muslims, Stabs Ally In The Back Over Nukes

July 4th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

04mideast-articlelarge
Benjamin Netanyahu, more American than Obama, at a 4th of July celebration in Israel

New York Times:

WASHINGTON — It was only one paragraph buried deep in the most plain-vanilla kind of diplomatic document, 40 pages of dry language committing 189 nations to a world free of nuclear weapons. But it has become the latest source of friction between Israel and the United States in a relationship that has lurched from crisis to crisis over the last few months.

At a meeting to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in May, the United States yielded to demands by Arab nations that the final document urge Israel to sign the treaty — a way of spotlighting its historically undeclared nuclear weapons.

Israel believed it had assurances from the Obama administration that it would reject efforts to include such a reference, an Israeli official said, and it saw this as another sign of unreliability by its most important ally. In a recent visit to Washington, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, raised the issue in meetings with senior American officials.

With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to meet President Obama on Tuesday at the White House, the flap may introduce a discordant note into a meeting that both sides are eager to portray as a chance for Israel and the United States to turn the page after a rocky period.

Other things have changed notably for the better in American-Israeli relations since Mr. Netanyahu called off his last visit to the White House to rush home to deal with the crisis after Israel’s deadly attack on a humanitarian aid flotilla sailing to Gaza in late May. His agreement to ease the land blockade on Gaza, which came at the request of the United States, has helped thaw the chill between the governments, American and Israeli officials said.

Meanwhile, the raft of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, after the passage of the United Nations resolution, has reassured Israelis, who viewed Mr. Obama’s attempts to engage Iran with unease. Mr. Obama signed the American sanctions into law on Thursday.

“The overall tone is more of a feel-good visit than we’ve seen in the past,” said David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It has been more focused on making sure that the Ides of March have passed.”

He was referring to the dispute during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in March, when Israel approved plans for Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. Mr. Obama was enraged by what he perceived as a slight to Mr. Biden, and when Mr. Netanyahu visited a few weeks later, the While House showed its displeasure by banning cameras from recording the visit.

But despite the better atmospherics, some analysts said the nuclear nonproliferation issue symbolizes why Israel remains insecure about the intentions of the Obama administration. In addition to singling out Israel, the document, which has captured relatively little public attention, calls for a regional conference in 2012 to lay the groundwork for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Israel, whose nuclear arsenal is one of the world’s worst-kept secrets, would be on the hot seat at such a meeting.

At the last review conference, in 2005, the Bush administration refused to go along with any references to Israel, one of several reasons the meeting ended in acrimony, without any statement.

This time, Israel believed the Obama administration would again take up its cause. As a non-signatory to the treaty, Israel did not attend the meeting. But American officials consulted the Israelis on a text in advance, which they found acceptable, a person familiar with those discussions said. That deepened their surprise at the end.

Administration officials said the United States negotiated for months with Egypt, on behalf of the Arab states, to leave out the reference to Israel. While the United States supports the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East, it stipulated that any conference would be only a discussion, not the beginning of a negotiation to compel Israel to sign on to the treaty.

The United States practices a policy of ambiguity with respect to Israel’s nuclear stockpile, neither publicly discussing it nor forcing the Israeli government to acknowledge its existence.

The United States, recognizing that the document would upset the Israelis, sought to distance itself even as it signed it.

In a statement released after the conference ended, the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, said, “The United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document.” He said it was “equally deplorable” that the document did not single out Iran for its nuclear ambitions. Any conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, General Jones said, could only come after Israel and its neighbors had made peace.

The United States, American officials said, faced a hard choice: refusing to compromise with the Arab states on Israel would have sunk the entire review conference. Given the emphasis Mr. Obama has placed on nonproliferation, the United States could not accept such an outcome.

It also would complicate the administration’s attempts to build bridges to the Arab world, an effort that is at the heart of some of the disagreements between the United States and Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama will have plenty of other things to discuss this week. After several rounds of indirect talks, brokered by the administration’s special envoy, George J. Mitchell, the United States is pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians to begin direct negotiations.

A central question, analysts said, is whether Mr. Netanyahu will extend Israel’s self-imposed moratorium on new residential construction in West Bank settlements, which expires in September. He is unlikely to take such a step unless the Palestinians agree to face-to-face talks, they said.

For Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu, the most basic priority may be establishing trust between them — which is why the flap over the nuclear conference, though small, is potentially troublesome.

“Most American presidents who end up being successful on Israel manage to create, even amid great mistrust and suspicion, a pretty good working relationship,” said Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East peace negotiator. “This has been a real crisis of confidence, which cuts to the core of how each leader sees his respective world.”

Exclusive Video: National Magazine says Obama not Born in U.S.

Exclusive Video: National Magazine says Obama not Born in U.S.

July 3rd, 2010

From ImpeachObamaCampaign.com

Watch the Video Below

Globe Magazine has taken up the Obama Eligibility Story with a a hard hitting story that is sure to enlighten many people to the things that you have been reading here every day at ImpeachObamaCampaign.com.

According to the article, “A Former Hawaii records official is sending shock waves through Washington, D.C., by revealing there is absolutely no birth certificate for Barack Obama.”
The Globe continues:

“I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver’s license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity,” says Timothy Adams, who served as senior government records clerk in Honolulu in 2008.

“There is no birth certificate. I was informed by my boss that we did not have Obama’s birth record.”

Impeach Obama Campaign has been hitting the Hawaiian Election Clerk Story from the beginning.

And now on July 3rd, the day before Independence Day, a national magazine has finally taken up the story.

According to the Globe, “The repercussions of Adams’ stunning disclosure could bring Obama’s presidency to an untimely and disastrous end.”

The fact of Obama’s ineligibility is slowly being revealed across the country. Keep forwarding these pages to your friends and encourage your friends to do the same. Before long, with the voice of the American people calling out in a deafening shout, even the Mainstream Media will be forced to sit up and listen. And then, even Barack Hussein Obama will be forced to sit up and listen. And he won’t like what he hears.

Visit us at ImpeachObamaCampaign.com and sign the petition to Impeach Obama. Lets get him out before he can do any more damage to this beautiful country.

ImpeachObamaCampaign.com The best place to hear what Obama can’t stand you hearing

National Magazine says Obama not born in U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll1ihGd3lCo&feature=player_embedded

A better “Miss Me Yet?” billboard

A better “Miss Me Yet?” billboard

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 9, 2010 10:06 PM

I’m not the only one with misgivings about the Bush “Miss Me Yet?” billboard.

Reader W.E. Messamore came up with some new and improved “Miss Me Yet?” billboard photoshops, including my favorite:

Bull’s-eye. Definitely want to see someone put this one up for real!

A suggestion for this 4th of July

A suggestion for this 4th of July

Jerry Philipson

Every patriotic American should do two things on this July 4th.

First, recite the Presidential Oath of Office to themselves and second, resolve to do everything they can within the law to prevent Obama from inflicting further damage on the country and the world until he is tossed out of office in disgrace in the next election.

In other words, we must all be President. We must all take personal responsibility for safeguarding our values and beliefs and this great nation of ours because thanks to Obama and his acolytes the consequences will be catastrophic if we don’t. Hell, they already have been in many ways and if we don’t get on with it now America and the world will be unrecognizable by the time he’s through.

The Oath of Office is as follows…I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Since Obama has proven incapable of doing the job we must do it for him.

The Euthanasia Drumbeat Gets Louder

The Euthanasia Drumbeat Gets Louder

By Mark P. Mostert

Across the world, the inexorable push for accepting the new culture of death continues unabated.
It’s not a pretty picture, because whichever way you turn, there is pressure for assisted suicide and euthanasia to become an acceptable and even hallowed part of the social fabric.
While the roots of assisted suicide and euthanasia are hardly of recent vintage, the contemporary ground zero in our lifetimes is the Netherlands.
The Dutch pro-death story is the exemplar by which all pro-death efforts should be gauged because it shows how quickly a social taboo can be reversed in the public consciousness to being a desirable and even obligatory behavior.
By the late 1980s, the Netherlands had a problem. It was clear that in medical facilities across the country, hundreds of patients were being euthanized behind closed doors. The rising evidence of medicalized killing was problematic because euthanasia was then (and still is) illegal in Holland.
Predictably, rather than prosecuting medical personnel who were in effect executing their patients, the authorities’ hand-wringing led to the Remmelink Report, which verified that illegal medicalized killing was a fact. Just as predictably, the Dutch solution was to regulate euthanasia rather than prosecute the killing as a criminal offense.
This was the beginning of the end. What started out as a set of guidelines to control euthanasia soon morphed into the current Dutch take of horror:
Initially, euthanasia was meant only for adults who were terminally ill and in unbearable and uncontrollable physical pain.
Soon, euthanasia became available for those with unbearable physical pain, even if it could be controlled, and even if they were not terminally ill.
It got worse. Soon thereafter, euthanasia was allowed for those who were not only not terminally ill, but for people in no physical pain whatsoever — psychological pain, controllable or not, was enough.
And then came the nasty canard that if euthanasia was available for adults, it should be made available for teens. Promptly, the age limit to request euthanasia for just about any reason was lowered to 16.
So the current state of affairs in the Netherlands is that euthanasia is available on request and after meeting some very vague criteria: if you are 16 or older, in some form of (undefined) “unbearable” pain (not necessarily physical), and if it seems that things won’t get better anytime soon.
But that’s not the end of this macabre story.
Under the current Dutch guidelines, euthanasia is reported only after the patient is dead, so there’s no way of knowing whether all incidents of euthanasia are reported. Chances are that there are many more medicalized killings than are actually recorded.
That’s not the end: It’s officially reported that hundreds if not thousands of patients in the Netherlands are killed even though they never requested euthanasia. Furthermore, the euthanasia figures do not include those who die via assisted suicide or the number of newborns with disabilities that are routinely euthanized under the Groningen Protocol. Both of these groups are reported separately.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that as the legal constraints preventing medicalized killing in the Netherlands have been loosened to the point that current criminal statutes are routinely ignored, there has been a corresponding collapse of popular opposition to euthanasia.
For example, a recent Dutch campaign by euthanasia advocates garnered 100,000 signatures petitioning that euthanasia be allowed for anyone over the age of 70, even for the flimsy reason that they are simply tired of living.
Also, “official” euthanasia is on the rise: Government figures from 2008 show a 10% rise in the number of incidents of euthanasia and then another 13% rise last year. The Dutch ministry of Health is apparently “concerned” about the rising kill rate. Given the euthanasia push over the last twenty years, I’m surprised the Dutch are surprised that euthanasia is out of hand.
The slippery slope has gone the same way in Switzerland and Belgium. I predict it will soon be the same in the U.K.
And in the U.S., the story is beginning to mimic these matters overseas. Oregon and Washington both have seriously flawed assisted suicide laws that invite abuse and exploitation, and now there’s word that a psychiatrist is proposing an assisted death clinic in Oregon along the lines of the infamous Dignitas assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland.
Let’s hope looking at the Netherlands will bring us to our senses long before death on demand or involuntarily are considered dignified, brave, and obligatory.
Dr. Mark Mostert lives in Virginia Beach, Virginia. He can be contacted at his news blog Alive and Kicking or at markpmostert@gmail.com.