July 17, 2009

As if you needed another reason to oppose the health care bill....

Guess what? It's got a new provision - and this one is a big gift to trial lawyers, complete with ribbons, bows, and your money. Overlawyered has the scoop:


For some time now the federal government has been intensifying its pursuit of what are sometimes known as “Medicare liens” against third party defendants (more). In the simplest scenario — not the only scenario, as we will see below — someone is injured in, say, a car accident, and has the resulting medical bills paid by Medicare. They then sue and successfully obtain damages from the other driver. At this point Medicare (i.e. the government) is free to demand that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement to cover the cost of the health care, but under some conditions it is also free to file its own action to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up paying for the same medical bills twice). It might do this if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary.

The newly added language in the Thursday morning version of the health bill (for those following along, it’s Section 1620 on pp. 713-721) would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new: allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government — without asking permission — and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a qui tam procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty-hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.
Not surprisingly, it gets a whole lot worse.

I'm not a lawyer, nor a legal scholar, but this reads very much like a worst-nightmare scenario for us all. The whole health care bill is like that, but this provision is already giving me creepy-crawly gooseflesh.

If you haven't already done so, call your congressman (your CONGRESSMAN, not your STATE REPRESENTATIVE) and everybody else's congressman and tell them to vote no. No to state-run health care, no to state-run health insurance, and no to every version of Obamacare that might possibly come down the pike.

Anyone else thinking we need an escape hatch?

Read more...

July 16, 2009

There you go again

Oh, there you go again, Joe.


“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said. “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

This was at an AARP Town Hall Meeting, just today.

Brilliant.

Read more...

July 14, 2009

Obama mulls "rent" option for delinquent homeowners

Of course, if you pay property taxes (and I KNOW we did), you are essentially renting your home from the government.


Think about it! If this hasn't ever occured to you, you haven't stopped to consider that even after you pay off your mortgage (assuming you do), you will still pay property taxes. And what's worse, even the senior citizen exemption won't stop it - you'll still pay taxes, they just won't go up (they won't go down, either).

I am talking from a Texas perspective, though I'm sure plenty of other states suffer their citizens to live out this same fate.

Call this Obama Fail Plan #34399893939931110.

Read more...

In case you're as sick of the ObamaStarGame as I am...

Some reading! Caution, it's not ALL political.













The Harry Potter Lexicon - in case you need a reference point when your friends (or your kids) start talking about a Horcrux, the Inferi, or Muggles this week.




Read more...

July 13, 2009

The Dan Patrick Factor

Ordinarily, I'd take Harvey Kronberg's theories lightly, but this one has given me a considerable amount of "hmmm"s in the last hour, so I thought I'd post about it. Earlier this evening, HK posited the theory that Gov. Perry could appoint State Senator Dan Patrick to KBH's empty US Senate seat (assuming, of course, it becomes vacant).


HK gets into all the positives that come out of such an alliance/arrangement, so I thought I'd post some of the negatives - or rather, the dirty politics of such a scenario.

1 - If you appoint Dan Patrick to the US Senate, you leave SD 7 vacant, with no guarantee of being able to elect a comparable replacement. That's bad juju for conservatives statewide. SD 7 would face a special election to replace Patrick, which presents a huge problem for the area. Bill White, currently going after the KBH place, could turn around and aim at SD 7. You could also see a rehash of Joe Nixon and Peggy Hamric going for it. I'm not as familiar with other faces in that district, but as much as Dan Patrick owns that territory in theory, it's harder to say what the outcome would be in the event no one as conservative or as heavy-hitting as Patrick gets in that race. Conservatives should oppose leaving that seat vulnerable.

2 - Historically, the odds in a special election for an appointed incumbent in a US Senate seat in Texas are extremely bad. It's essentially a kiss of death for someone's political career. Say Patrick is appointed. The special election is a majority election (thanks Chris H), but would be a veritable free-for-all since there is no primary or limit on number of candidates (think of the many Republicans getting in the mix now, and the Dems - you're looking at potentially six candidates on top of the incumbent). There's no guarantee it remains Republican at all, and while Patrick's statewide name I.D. would certainly increase with this scenario, it may not be enough to overcome what the other candidates bring into the race.

3 - I assume we all remember Shelley Sekula-Gibbs? Shouldn't that case be taken as a warning here? (not that I'm comparing Sekula-Gibbs and Patrick - God forbid! - but the point is there about incumbency not having quite the punch you'd like in an honest fight)

4 - Now for the dirty pool. Isn't neutralizing Dan Patrick the ideal scenario for David Dewhurst, who is himself a potential Senate candidate? The party is going to be split enough over the Perry/KBH primary. Add in a Patrick/Dewhurst special election, and it's all-out war in the Republican Party.

There are very good reasons for Patrick to be supporting Perry's agenda without contemplating a run for a different office at this point, and certainly Perry can gain momentum with any number of other candidates.

All the more reason that KBH's non-announcement announcement of earlier today chafes me severely. The imminent political wrangling is made all the worse by her appearing to not have her mind fully made up. Until we know if she's resigning or not, a host of decisions from statewides are held in the balance. We don't know what Dewhurst is doing, or Abbott, and meanwhile there are candidates building campaigns that could become moot if nothing happens in time for the primary. I know it's only July, but KBH is certainly acting like a serious gubernatorial candidate. It'd be nice if she would admit it publicly once and for all, and maybe offer more than Capitol scuttlebutt about resigning from the Senate.

Really, I don't see Perry appointing Patrick to the US Senate. There aren't a lot of good, solid, verifiable reasons to make such a move. Perry's smarter than this, and the people helping him make decisions are smarter. The Republican Party is something of a non-factor in the ongoing saga, but I think that even there, the idea of replacing KBH centers on known quantities that don't upset the delicate balance in the Texas Legislature. And, I think Patrick would be foolish to accept such an appointment. He should finish out his term, prove he can win reelection in SD 7 come 2012, and then start looking at his options. This is coming from someone who supported the "Draft Dan Patrick for Governor" effort last year. It's too soon for him, in the end. It won't hurt if he takes the time to build his resume and supporter base.

Read more...

Guess who's not paying their property taxes???

Courtesy of ChangeAustin.org:

Property Location Sales Date Sales Price Tax Appraisal
16.8 acres Hwy 71/620 May 2007 $11.2 million $ 3.7 million
18.5 acres Comanche Trail April 2006 $ 5.5 million $ 840,000
Downtown 401 Guadalupe March 2007 $ 4.8 million $ 1.07 million
Downtown 68-74 Rainey October 2007 $ 3.2 million $ 753,600
389 acres Hwy 71@FM 973 June 2006 $28.5 million $ 6.6 million




*** and many, many more examples available upon request ***


While homeowners pay 100% of our property taxes, large commercial owners (largely out-of-state speculators and big developers) have been getting a 40% property tax break -- for years!

Why are Austin homeowners fighting for scraps at the tax appraisal hearings when the big guys get off the hook?

"The Appraisal District actually threatened me that if I kept pressing my point to lower the appraisal on my home, they would raise it!" - an Anonymous Travis County citizen.


Is this is why 8,500 Travis County residents are
protesting their property taxes?



Join us for an old-fashioned tax protest!

Thursday, July 16th, High Noon
Travis Central Appraisal District Offices Outside
8314 Cross Park Drive, Austin, TX 78754



Bring your kids, your dogs, your pitch forks and don't forget yourself!!!

Sponsored by ChangeAustin.org
512-383-8484 *** Contact@ChangeAustin.org

Read more...

Impatient political ponderings and link dump

I just had to look at a calendar, to make sure I'm right about it being July 2009, because all the campaign talk seemed to ramp up a notch today. Sure, sure, fundraising and TEC reporting has begun and that's why. But it's also that everyone is sick of waiting to see what KBH is going to do and is theorizing and talking shop.

Shocker: Rob Johnson from Dewhurst's shop is taking the helm at Perry's campaign, and the campaign lists all new hires in the press release. (QR has the list here). The question I have for you, dear reader, is what does this mean in terms of the Dew himself? Is he running, what is running for - will he EVER make an announcement, or is he waiting for Hutch to abdicate and Perry to appoint him to the Senate?

Burka's got a damned good question today. Why is Bill White running for Senate? (incidentally, why is John Sharp running for Senate?)

KBH has announced that she's got, big surprise, $12.5 million cash-on-hand. Well, she could raise money before June 2, and she's got her federal campaign kitty. I doubt, at this point, that money is the be all and end all in the GOP primary. Polling, after all, is leaning Perry's way. KBH will also announce (formally) her campaign for governor in August. So now we can all say "DUH" in our blog headlines and keep wondering when she's announcing her resignation from the Senate, or even if she will resign. Fun.

Michael Lux wrote an article for HuffPo last week called "The Future of Democrats in Texas." I need to read the whole thing, but my from-the-hip reply to him regarding the Hispanic vote - quit making assumptions about political affiliation based on skin color/race/ethnicity! Seriously, this is a problem on both sides of the aisle.

The Sotomayor hearings began today. Honestly, once Senator (I can't believe I'm typing this) Franken appeared, I had to turn it off. Was he really put on the Judiciary Committee? Sigh.

A member of the MSM spoke out on the destruction of Sarah Palin here. It's nothing we on the right didn't know. It's nice to see someone in the press admit it. It's even better to see it spelled out like this.

This isn't campaign related. But it's vital reading. Barbara Moeller speaks out on the Texas (that's UT) "mugging" of Western Civilization education.

The inimitable William Lutz of the Lone Star Report gives his thoughts on what to expect out of the 2010 campaign season. What hasn't been talked about much, yet, is the Texas House. Money will be spent to flip this chamber, we already know this. Republicans are lining up to defend their turf, and, if all goes well, aim at the so-called "low-hanging fruit" that is statistically theirs already. The question, I think, is not whether the Dems spend money - it's how much, and when.

I know there were more things. For now, I'll end this link dump.

Read more...

July 11, 2009

Setting the bar too high....or too low?

Read more...

Why Elite Women Hate Palin

Ooo, this is good stuff. I didn't see it when it was first published. Ann Marlowe on Forbes.com wrote about why elite women hate Sarah Palin. While some of it is certainly presumptive and kind of mean (just like those entitled, elite girls you avoided in high school were), it's a pretty insightful piece.


H/T to the Network of enlightened Women. The NeW post takes umbrage with the assertion that Sarah Palin is an "average" woman, and there are great points about the fact that what Palin did was no small feat.


Read more...

What Republicans can learn from the YRNF

The zoo that the Young Republican National Federation convention has been this weekend (I'm not there, but I'm following the insipidity on Twitter) is not unique to the YRNF, but it is the latest in a long series of debacles in the GOP and should be used as a lesson for all Republicans.


The reason for the chaos is the race for YRNF president. Two candidates, Audra Shay and Rachel Hoff, and their respective slates, Team Renewal and YR Next Level, have been jockeying for support for several months among the chapter states. In just the last couple of weeks, the race took a nasty turn (which is chronicled here). Today, the convention commenced amidst impatience and controversy. A fight over the rules, and a vote on whether to conduct the elections by secret ballot, got ugly fast. (Side note about secret ballots: The only reason, in a personality election, that you do not want a secret ballot is because you want to be able to retaliate against those who vote against your side. It is not about transparency).

Ultimately, despite the controversy, Team Renewal's Audra Shay won the day, and of course, the PR nightmare began right out of the gate.

Now, I had no dog in this hunt, so to speak, not being a dues-paying YR these days and therefore having no vote. So I want to be clear, that regardless of the outcome of today's election at the YRNC, I would be commenting on this. In fact this post began a full hour or more before the election results were announced.

Reports about today's convention proceedings prove that in the end, it almost didn't matter which side won. The YRNF is fraught with division politics, navel-gazing electoral problems, parliamentary weight, and organizational ladder-climbers. Not that these problems are exclusive to the YRNF, not by any means. The reason I'm bothering to post about this now is because I've seen these problems time and again in many different affiliate and support clubs.

Some thoughts:

1 - Perception matters in politics. Outside of the YRNF, the only story that will be told is that a "hatemonger" was elected president. I've met Audra, I never had the impression that she's like that, but it does not matter that she isn't. Have we learned nothing from political history? The media (old AND new) isn't going to tell the story you want them to tell. They'll tell the story that is most apparent to the viewer/reader. If you don't want to be labeled a racist, be intolerant toward racists, not just inclusive of all races.

2 - Faction and division are signs that the real work isn't getting done. It's notable, once again, that the McCain campaign did not have an official "Youth for McCain" arm, and it's notable that the Young Republicans have been largely absent on the national stage except for their scandals.

3 - Put your money where your mouth is. All this time and effort was spent promoting candidates to run the YR - imagine what they could do if one of them ran for Congress! Rebuild the Party promoted the idea, and I love it, of state parties running 40 candidates under the age of 40. Except for the grand display of immaturity that erupted on Twitter and elsewhere, I'm sure the candidates for this initiative could be found, in part, in the YRNF.

4 - Or, hey, say we don't focus on the under-40s for our candidate pool. Plenty of NFRW members who could run. Or NFRA members.

5 - The Republican Party is airing its dirty laundry in full view of the neighbors. We like to believe that no one pays attention to this kind of thing. But believe me, the opposition knows, and they're loving it. It's past time that we start learning the art of getting along. It's not that the Dems don't have these dramas (remember how the Florida delegation wasn't allowed to vote last year?). It's that they largely don't play out on the public scene. Don't give the media a reason to talk, don't give the left a reason to celebrate. A unified Republican Party is what they fear most. (am I breaking this rule with this post - probably)

6 - That being said, one of the rules at my house growing up was "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." This needs to be rule #1 for Facebook, Twitter, all social media tools.

7 - Last thing. This habit of running on a "slate" really doesn't do much good at all. The entire Team Renewal slate won today. But was it because they were individually competent and qualified, or because of momentum as Next Level delegates lost hope? Also, I disagree with the unit rule practice, and also the "pledging" of delegate strength before the actual convention. Let a person vote his/her conscience.


I'm sure there will be more to say when the delegates come home and tell their stories. This is only part of what I've been thinking for awhile about group politics. The YRNF, because they supposedly "represent" all Republicans ages 18-40, have a special place in this discussion.

(ETA: Interesting blog post here about the convention, from the eyes of an exhibit booth volunteer)

Read more...

July 09, 2009

Rules for Radical Conservatives

"Typically, the conservative attempts to conserve, to hold on to the values of the existing society. But what if the existing society is liberal? What if the existing society is inherently hostile to conservative beliefs? It is foolish for conservatives to attempt to conserve that culture. Rather, he must seek to undermine it, to thwart it, to destroy it at the root level. This means that the conservative must stop being conservative. More precisely, he must be philosophically conservative but temperamentally radical." - from D'Souza's Letters to a Young Conservative


When Dinesh D'Souza wrote that, he was referring to college campuses. He was talking to campus conservatives, people trapped in inherently liberal microsocieties. Of course, at Blue Dot Blues, a blog written from within the vacuum of the People's Republic of Travis County, "inherently liberal" is a fancy way of describing the situation here. It's no wonder I find D'Souza inspiring reading even now, far from university life and deep in the political reality of my part of central Texas.

There is a lot of pondering happening on the right, since last Friday's shocking and, for some, demoralizing announcement from Governor Sarah Palin. Alinsky's Rules were successful. How do we fight back? Fausta has some thoughts here. And if you haven't read it, David Kahane's theory is here, posted on National Review.

It was easy to feel, especially in the blue dot, discouraged and adrift last Friday. It was like losing the election all over again - but that's a weak comparison, because Palin's resignation was far bigger than losing the election in a lot of ways. This isn't me putting her on a pedastal - there are many reasons to be bewildered and upset by her abdication - but it is me thinking, once again, of the greater impact and import of Sarah Palin. Friday's speech, at the time, felt like capitulation.

Well, I imposed the old three day rule on myself. The three day rule is an election recovery tactic. If your candidate loses, give yourself three days to mope, cry, complain, and whinge. Then, on day four, turn up the optimism. Straighten your back, hold your head up high, and start planning how you WILL win the next election.

Sarah Palin inspired and gave a wild shot of hope to so many conservative Republicans. She was the one thing, really, that galvanized voters to support McCain - and many did, Obama did NOT win in a landslide or receive some kind of definitive mandate ala Reagan in 1980. Her resignation sucks for those people, but she has her reasons, and those people need to move on. The inspiration is still there, for me. A conservative woman made it to be nominated as the Republican candidate for vice president. What success! What progress! And just as Sarah Palin once ran for city council, and then mayor, and then for the highest offices in her state, hundreds of thousands of conservative women who for so long have given support to the men in our party can also stand up and say "My turn."

We needed what she represented. We knew, and needed reminding, that what she has done is necessary and possible.

And not just women! On some level, conservatives of both genders and every race and ethnicity needed it, too. And it spread like wildfire, this renewed passion.

What we cannot do, after Friday's speech, is collapse and wither back into the accepted role of silent majority. And we cannot continue to let the inherent nature of our society keep us hiding and frightened.

We must, in essence, be temperamentally radical.

Read more...

July 08, 2009

Summer Reading List

I know, there are weighty and heavy things I should be blogging about. After today's Austin Tech R's meeting, I have a lot of thoughts about Republican messaging, and I could blog about that if I didn't feel like getting into health care or cap-and-tax or how much money Gov. Perry has raised (or how much money Dan Branch has raised - whew).

But it's a hundred degrees outside, I feel a great need to take a dip in Barton Creek pool, and I want to blog about reading. My blog, my rules, etc blah et al.

This was inspired by The Anchoress, incidentally.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a bookworm and have been since the age of 4. My husband is also a bookworm, and the two of us combined have a collection that just keeps growing. At any given time, I am probably reading two or three books, not counting whatever Bible study I'm doing at the time. One may wonder how, with basically having three jobs and keeping up a blog and doing side projects and being a club officer - well, you get it.

And yet....

Okay, my summer reading. Subject to change at will. I'm nothing if not totally unpredictable when it comes to what I'll be reading when.

Since early June:

First Lady of the Confederacy: Varina Davis' Civil War by Joan Cashin. I got this for my birthday; it's a great, thorough biography of Varina Howell Davis, who has fascinated me since I did a paper on women and the Confederacy in the 7th grade. Excellent.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I don't think I have to explain. But if I do, skip this blog, go to the bookstore, and report back when you're done.

Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood. I can never put into words how much I love Margaret Atwood. This historical fiction was amazing.

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. A re-read. I love this book so much. I'll never understand why they assign it in high school, though, when really, it takes an older mind to get some of the nuances. I think some books are better when you're older, even if you're technically able to read them when you're younger. This is one of them.

Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
. Largely a re-read, though there was a chunk I didn't get to the first time around. Still digesting this one. It's a good, relatively quick read (esp. if you have any knowledge of American history beyond what they teach in survey courses) and it is endlessly fascinating and deeply disturbing.

Where the Heart Is by Billie Letts. I'm a big believer in reading this kind of thing in the summer months, when the melodrama is less likely to contribute to seasonal mood swings. This was a first for me, and I enjoyed it - once I found a copy that didn't have the Oprah Seal of Approval on it.

Something Borrowed by Emily Griffin
. I was sent a copy of this by the publisher through a GoodReads program, and I....well. I liked it okay, it was one of the better examples of the genre. I can't say I loved it. I'm not really one for this kind of fiction (what I think of as "sex and the city" fiction). Still, it was an enjoyable frothy read. Sometimes froth is good.

Currently:

Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas
. A re-read, for my Christian women's book club.

1776 by David McCullough
. Believe it or not, first time reading this, though I've had a copy for a couple of years. I am LOVING it.

Letters to a Young Conservative by Dinesh D'Souza
. Another re-read. I'm working on a blog post based off this re-read, as I think there is a lot in it relevant to the "old" conservatives I know who are searching for definitions.

To-read pile (just a sample):

Mrs. Lincoln by Catherine Clinton. I thought it would be an interesting follow-up read to the book on Varina Davis. They were such different people, who lived through extraordinary times.

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Bronte. My library doesn't have this, but I'll get my hands on it eventually.

The Harry Potter books by JK Rowling. Time for a re-read. I'm of course thrilled about the movie coming out.

Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times by H.W. Brands
. If you're a history nut and you have NOT read something, anything by H.W. Brands (or David McCullough, or Amanda Foreman), you are MISSING OUT. I read Brands' book on Teddy Roosevelt awhile back and was just floored. I got this one on Andy Jackson for my birthday and I'm really looking forward to reading it.

Read more...

July 07, 2009

Austin Tech Republicans Monthly Meeting Weds.

Austin Tech Republicans will have their next meeting on Weds, July 8th, from 11:45am to 1pm at Mangia Pizza on MoPac. Discussion Topic A: "The Republican Party - What's wrong with the GOP? (And what's not wrong)? How can we fix it?"

If you're a conservative/Republican interested in science and technology issues, social media marketing, or just looking for like-minded individuals in the north Austin area, please join us!

Read more...

July 04, 2009

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 bonds 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 to 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 shown 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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration 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 legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to 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 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 benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:


For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 in 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.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and 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 endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is 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 attention 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 the 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.



New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual 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

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

Read more...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP