Thanks for stopping by to read this.  There has been so much misinformation about PUMA floating around that I thought I would take a brief minute to clear some things up and at the same time explain why I became a PUMA.

Many Democrats felt that the primary was unfair and problematic, and that the unchecked sexism was inexcusable.

In addition, the actions of a large sector the the supposed "progressive liberal" netroots/blogospere were HORRENDOUS.  For example, TexasDarlin has a page of the horrible hate mail she has gotten which threatens her, her kids, and the like.  Click Here.  Hillaryismygirl08 has recieved death threats and was the victim of arson.  Click Here.  PUMApac is keeping a list of the bloggers that have recieved death threats from the supporters of Barack Obama.  Click Here.

First, the sexism.

The dispairty in which sexism was treated in comparison with racism was unbelievable. There were pundits on various news stations calling her "B**ch" or like "an ex-wife outide a divorce court" and even "castrating." She would get confronted at rallies with signs that said "Iron My Shirt" and the like. Certain stores owned my major media networks sold "Hillary Nutcrackers." Barack Obama himself would make comments about Hillary being "Periodically" down or her "claws" coming out. The comments coming from the various blogs and "netroots" standards were awful...

And yet, throughout all of this, there was hardly a peep of objection from anyone.

On the other hand, as soon as there was something that could possibly maybe be twisted into something that could have hinted at racism if you looked at it just right... everyone was all up in arms, Howard Dean would be on TV, the pundits would talk about it, and it would be news for a week.

Is racism wrong? Absolutely. Did it rear it's ugly head during this campaign cycle? Yes. Was the cry of racism unfairly applied in certain instances? I think so, but that is just my opinion and beside the point at the moment.

The difference is that the sexism came from every direction and no one said anything, either that or they didn't even notice.  I am not sure which is worse actually.

As a matter of fact, Howard Dean had a conversation with Cynthia Ruccia of Women-For-Fair-Politics asking her what the DNC could do to get her back on board.  When she replied that he needed to address the sexism that had occurred during the primary, Dean actually responded "What sexism?"

Unforgivable.

Then there was the primary/caucus season itself.

Not even mentioning the unfairness of the caucus system, the allegations of improprieties, and the like... Michigan is a prime example of the problems with this primary season.

It is true, and even Clinton will admit, that everyone agreed that FL and MI would be stripped of all delegates. BUT the problem is that in one of the closest and most historically important elections in US history, that we could not leave these millions of people out of the loop... especially since MI is full of "Reagan Dems" and FL is the quintessential swing state.

What the Rules and Bylaws Committee did with Michigan was a travesty. The RBC awarded Obama the delegates represented by the people who voted for "Uncommitted" (which is a recognized status, not to mention the fact that those people who voted uncommitted were also doing a proxy vote for other candidates as well... Edwards, Biden, etc). These were votes he did not earn. Then the RBC went one step further and awarded Obama 4 delegates earned by Hillary Clinton. In the most literal sense, the RBC actually changed peoples votes!!!

It was after this event that a blogger on The Confluence blog made a snarky post about how they were done with the party and that they had a new party they belonged to... PUMA, which stood for Party Unity My A$$.

This caught on like wildfire, and it became a rallying cry. People all over the net adopted the term PUMA independently.

Then, a guy named Will Bower formed JustSayNoDeal as an umbrulla to provide all the PUMA people with a loose coalition.  At the same time and shortly after the JustSayNoDeal coalition was being formed, the various PACs, 527s and the like began to take shape.

The JustSayNoDeal Coalition is a group of hundreds of websites and bloggers representing MILLIONS of people (estimates range between 2 to 4 million), BUT one thing to keep in mind is that it is a loose coalition.

The fact that it is a coalition means that every group, and even every individual, under the banner has a different agenda, different opinions and different goals. Some want to get Hillary on the ballot, some hope for Hillary in 2012, some don't like Hillary that much and actually supported Edwards or others, some want to vote for McCain, some want to stay home, some won't vote for any Democrats, some will vote for Democrat down ticket but not for Obama... and so on.

So, here is the problem with anti-puma websites and people like Donna Brazille as well as thier like-minded individuals...  they cannot seem to wrap their heads around the fact that it is a coalition, not a unified front with one message, so they take one statement that one person who identifies themselves as a "PUMA" and generalize it across the board. In addition, they take half truths then shade, stretch, simplify and omit to make us sound like the devil, when nothing could be further than the truth.

The truth of the matter is that the movement is not even about Hillary Clinton herself anymore. This also seems to be a difficult concept for the anti-puma groups to fathom.

Essentially there are two things that all PUMAs care about...

1. Democracy - 1 person 1 vote and the sanctity of that vote.

2. Equality - Our society and those that represent us should reject sexism as strongly as they reject racism.

And those two ideas, which are the principles upon which this country was founded, are far more important, essential and basic than any of the policy platforms of a particular candidate. 

We are not a "swiftboat" campaign, we are not "liars" and we are not "Republicans."

We are Democrats that want our party back.

So there you go, a bit of history, a bit of explanation and a bit of ranting.

These are the reasons I am a PUMA and why I feel betrayed by my party.

And now I want to hear from you.  Tell me your story, your puma history, your declaration of pumahood...  I look forward to reading all your stories!

PUMA.

Respectfully,

Texas Hill Country
http://texashillblog.wordpress.com

This single is the second from her Fail album, 'The Declaration'.

The video is a colourful and cartoon-ish affair that looks like it was torn from the pages of an old-school comic book.

I have only heard the song through once, but I quite like the fact that there is an (apparent) naughty sub-text. Let me know if you think I am wrong on this one, but it sounds like Ashanti is talking about the, um... special way she keeps her man coming back for more; her 'Good [*insert rude word for lady parts here*]'.

Subtle rude-y-ness aside and pained as I am to admit it, I must admit there is something very cute about this video, even despite the fact that it features Nelly!

Written By - TheLostGirl ONLY for TheLostGirl’s Blog website - Accept no imitators.

Please let me know if you are reading this post ANYWHERE other than http://iamthelostgirl.wordpress.com.I, TheLostGirl, have NOT given permission for my post to be reproduced in full elsewhere - excerpts only please, people.

Thoughts? Please leave a comment in the box below. No registration or name required!

Would you like regular FREE updates at the click of a button? If so, click on the RSS icon to get posts in your reader or by email!

 

"Body On Me" é a nova música de trabalho da Ashanti e do Nelly, e tem a participação do Akon. Para quem não entendu, a música está nos CDs "Declaration" e "Brass Knuckles" que foram lançados este ano, e a única diferença das faixas, de um CD para o outro, é a ordem e o tamanho dos versos. O clipe já está sendo gravado e assim que pintar por aí, eu posto. Por enquanto:

Ashanti - "Body On Me" part. Akon, Nelly

[audio=http://www.filefreak.com/pfiles/61147/10-ashanti-body_on_me_feat._akon_and_nelly_produced_by_akon.mp3]

Nelly - "Body On Me" part. Akon, Ashanti

[audio=http://www.filefreak.com/pfiles/61147/body_on_me_www.superstarju.blogspot.com.mp3]

A impressão que me dá, é que a Ashanti chega perto mas na hora mesmo não consegue. Digo, ela tem todos os elementos para ser uma cantora de sucesso (mundialmente) e desbancar muita gente como por exemplo, Rihanna que é meia boca como performer e como cantora, mas por alguma praga ou razão misteriosa ela não emplaca.

Quanto ao Nelly, hum...essa faixa era para Ashanti, só para ela e mesmo assim não rolou.

i find myself trying to curb my feelings,
telling myself to STOP
being so sensitive,
stop being so excited,
stop being so happy,
stop being disappointed.
but then it occurred to me that feelings are a part of life,
evidence that i am here
and breathing and experiencing the world around me.
to feel is what separates me from the dead
because the dead no longer have senses.
the dead stay stationary and their time to feel is
done.
their last feelings of
pain, relief, regret, sadness, joy,
anguish, fear, shaking, crashing,
accidents, birth, gunshots, stabbing,
life, laughter, reaching, grabbing,
desperation, depression, elation, and happy,
"I wish I had more time,"
"This is right on time,"
"God it's about time!"
inhale, exhale, in between,
noise, silence, and then more silence
is what carried them between this world and the next.
whereas i reside on this side of the universe,
whereas i am an alive, growing, living, breathing being,
i declare that today,
i feel.

As I sat down last night expecting to write a traditional patriotic post in celebration of our holiday, I paused to first read the insightful comment that "Sweet Is The Peace” left for me on my last post. I then followed his link to check out his site intending to give him a quick “thank you”. What ensued was an unexpected spiritual experience, as I read the life story of an active Mormon struggling with Gender Identity Disorder. This man’s very personal and honest story touched my heart and it allowed me to reflect on my own journey. My life experience has given me unique, heart-wrenching struggles both endured personally, and as a loved one to those in my closest circle. My specific trials have gone by different names than this brother's, but the severity and process parallels the things that Sweet has so openly shared.

As I reflect upon Sweet's agonizing struggle, I rejoice in his victories, and am inspired by his commitment to endure and overcome. He has created, in a very real sense, his own declaration of independence. He has pledged his life to defend his freedom from guilt, shame, sin and sorrow. Should we not all make this important personal pledge? I can think of nothing that would honor this historic day better, and be of more importance.

When Phillip Paul Bliss penned the poem for his hymn “More Holiness Give Me”, he included this inspired plea:

“More Purity Give Me
More Strength To O’ercome
More Freedom From Earth Stains
More Longing For Home
More Fit for the Kingdom
More Used Would I be
More Blessed and Holy
More Savior, Like Thee”

What a marvelous and poetic observation are those words “Earth Stains” – and the subsequent desire to be Free of them! Anyone who has had to do laundry knows about stains. Just one small spot of tomato can ruin a perfectly good piece of clothing, and it happens invariably on the first wearing. I have never been able to find a sufficient cure for grapejuice or mustard. I have also had the unpleasant experience of turning an entire load of white to pink when one very tiny red sock infiltrated. However, as discouraging as these stains and subsequent loss can be, the stains which saturate our souls are much more serious, lasting and damaging. The loss can be tragic and affect generations. These stains are what cause the world its greatest sorrows, and create the heaviest burdens for all of us. They are irreparable by any human means. And yet, there is hope. There is One who made it possible for our souls to be washed clean and be new again, no matter how filthy we may have become. He has taught that he will help make our burdens feel lighter. He will walk beside us, and never forsake us. He has also provided a church organization where each member makes a sacred promise at baptism to “bear one another’s burdens”. He will never leave us comfortless! He is Jesus Christ, our Lord, Savior and Redeemer. An apostle of Jesus Christ has taught:

“though we live in a failing world, we have not been sent here to fail.” - Elder Neal A. Maxwell

Our brother at “Sweet is the Peace” and his wife are quiet heroes. Their endurance will become a lasting legacy they will give their posterity. This is a gift gained by all those who “fight the good fight” during this mortal experience. Whether mortal or immortal, physical or spiritual, our Freedom is a priceless gift worth enduring all hardships and making every sacrifice to claim and maintain. It may very well require that we pass through a refiner's fire - but we may be strengthened in knowing that we are becoming new and clean and holy.

"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." - Courtesy, Wikipedia

LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS, SEE NOTICE BOARD, SEE AFRICAN EVENTS

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. 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.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for individuals to denounce the corporate bands which threaten to homogenize our cities and our souls, we must celebrate the powers that make us unique and declare the causes which compel us to remain independent.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all stores are not created equal, that some are endowed by their owners, their staff, and their communities with certain incomparable heights, that among these are Personality, Purpose and Passion. The history of the present indies is a history of experiences and excitement, which we will continue to establish as we set our sights on a more unconstrained state. To prove this, let’s bring each other along and submit our own experiences to an unchained world.

We, therefore, the Kindred Spirits of IndieBound, in the name of our convictions, do publish and declare that these united minds are, and darn well ought to be, Free Thinkers and Independent Souls. That we are linked by the passions that differentiate us. That we seek out soul mates to share our excitement. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the strength of our identities, we respectively and mutually pledge to lead the way as we all declare that we are IndieBound!

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for individuals to denounce the corporate bands which threaten to homogenize our cities and our souls, we must celebrate the powers that make us unique and declare the causes which compel us to remain independent.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all stores are not created equal, that some are endowed by their owners, their staff, and their communities with certain incomparable heights, that among these are Personality, Purpose and Passion. The history of the present indies is a history of experiences and excitement, which we will continue to establish as we set our sights on a more unconstrained state. To prove this, let’s bring each other along and submit our own experiences to an unchained world.

We, therefore, the Kindred Spirits of IndieBound, in the name of our convictions, do publish and declare that these united minds are, and darn well ought to be, Free Thinkers and Independent Souls. That we are linked by the passions that differentiate us. That we seek out soul mates to share our excitement. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the strength of our identities, we respectively and mutually pledge to lead the way as we all declare that we are IndieBound!

I signed the Declaration at Anderson's Bookshop. You can visit an IndieBound bookstore or sign it online at http://www.indiebound.org/

You can buy your own Indiegear at http://www.indiebound.org/indie-gear. I'm still deciding on a shirt but am leaning toward this one...

T.S. Eliot wrote in his immemorial poem The Hollow Men,

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends.

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

So, too, goes the Constitution. The silent and egregious asphyxiation of Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 10 is over 50 years old now. The plastic bag placed over this clause in 1949 was intentional. Today, Congress doesn't even know to whimper as her suitor approaches. What have been the results of this pound of flesh? What have ye wrought? For starters, America has not declared war since WWII and yet, we have been engaged in over 70 military actions.

The purpose of writing this post is to champion the constitutional meaning of a declaration of war and on the other hand, how to know when a formal declaration of war is unnecessary. The modern application has made the distinction not so clear. In the context of Congress’ power to declare war, pragmatism has dictated that initiation of hostilities requires an authorization for use of force. This authorization comes not from Congress but rather from the U.N. Security Council. Indeed, the argument is that Congress “authorized use of force” in Iraq through a "Use of Force" resolution deferring judgment to the Security Council. The argument goes like this: a declaration of war under the Constitution is the same as Congress' resolution adopting the Security Council's permission to go to war. Good enough, right? Wrong. This raises troubling questions purposefully ignored by the Republican leadership and others that were probably not contemplated. The dilemma is easily seen with respect to the term "terrorist."

Purpose for the "Legal" State of War

As the Father of International Law, Hugo Grotius, wrote, the state of war is

not an immediate action, but a state of affairs; so that war is the state of contending parties, considered as such. This definition, by is general extent, comprises wars of every description . . . .For the Latin word, Bellum, WAR, comes from the old word, Duellum, a DUEL, . . . and thereby implied a difference between two persons, in the same since as we term peace . . .

See Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace18 (1901 Dunne Reprint of Campbell Latin translation). This description of affairs between opposing nations, or in some contexts, between a nation and a group of individuals is a critical legal state. It is critical because the parties to this state of affairs immediately become "enemies." If we know who the enemy is, terms such as "terrorist" are properly side stepped. After all, who exactly is a terrorist? I challenge you to give it a definition before you go further. Seriously, don't read any further until you write a definition.

The term "terrorist" is a broad and vague term that doesn't help adjudicate the laws of war. The word "terrorist" can't be defined without including George Washington, Patrick Henry, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, et al. In short, you can't make a verb into a noun and expect it to fulfill a legal role.

Let me illustrate this point. Police seek to terrorize criminals. Criminals terrorize their victims. In fact, most common criminals would be terrorists, right? I, too, terrorize my 4 year old son when he is disobedient and my wife when I decide to give chase. Don't mistake the argument for being flippant or hyper-technical. There is no mistaking that Al Quaeda intends to terrorize their victims and more. And, I fully realize we are trying to describe a particular individual with the term "terrorist." But with this term, we are left with an analogy to Justice Potter Stewart who defined pornography as, "I know it when I see it." The problem of murky legal classification is easily seen when we arrest people around the world as suspected "terrorists" instead of determining whether that individual belongs to a group or nation that has declared war on us. We cannot know what legal rights to ascribe or impute to a particular individual. The laws of Nature do not allow us to simply arrest people on a whim. We must have authority. A declaration of war, on the other hand, identifies a specific enemy. We know who to target and who to destroy. We have authority.

When is a Declaration of War Unnecessary?

There are times when a declaration of war is patently unnecessary. Revisited many times as of late, the example of the Barbary Pirates is instructive. They attacked our ships and demanded tribute. They received that tribute from us until we decided not to pay. The host Islamic countries, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli decided on two occasions based on the Koran, to declare war on the United States. Congress then passed laws to go after these host countries under its war power and made rules for the capture of vessels. From there, the Marine Corps hymn was born. A declaration from Congress was, therefore, wholly unnecessary because the legal state of affairs constituting war already existed. Congress needed only to implement rules for the capture of the pirates and the authorization of the military force for that purpose.

Bin Laden made no bones about his intent when he declared war against America in 1996. Ergo, a declaration would be unnecessary because the state of affairs was declared. A declaration of war would in fact be redundant. In contrast, with respect to military action in Iraq, we refer to this engagement as the "Iraq War" despite the fact that no declaration exists. Iraq never attacked us and we have no proof that they were going to or had been. Reviewing the Congress' use of force resolution here is therefore instructive.

What is a Declaration of War?

Congress shall have the power 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.' Chief Justice John Marshall removed any doubt what this meant:

The whole powers of war being by the Constitution of the United States vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation, or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed.

Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1, 28 (1801) (emphasis added). It is the exclusive act of Congress alone to “declare” war or hostilities. Congress is therefore unable to delegate this exclusivity either in whole or in part to the President or the U.N. Security Council. The only possible means to do so is to follow the Amendment Clause in Article V. And, before the President can end hostilities, he must have the advice and consent of the Senate to conclude treaties of peace. We have yet further guidance. Marshall's protege' Justice Joseph Story wrote,

[T]he constitution confers on congress the power to declare war. Now the word declare has several senses. It may mean to proclaim, or publish. But no person would imagine, that this was the whole sense, in which the word is used in this connexion. It should be interpreted in the sense, in which the phrase is used among nations, when applied to such a subject matter. A power to declare war is a power to make, and carry on war. It is not a mere power to make known an existing thing, but to give life and effect to the thing itself.

(Emphasis added.) II Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution § 428. Under the Constitution, the word "declare" means much more than simply to publish and to make known the state of affairs. It is a state of affairs that draws after it belligerent rights, it changes the legal status of the Government or the relations of its citizens from that of peace to a state of war, and it brings in a host of duties and obligations of neutral third parties.

Rather than looking to past declarations of war which are clear and name an enemy, turn to the Declaration of Independence. We see a bill of particulars, a set of factual occurrences giving rise to an event. We do not see a series of facts determined by a foreign body of non-citizens giving us the authority to sever the political bands.

Why The Resolution of 2002 is not a Declaration of War

When one looks to the final form of H.J. Res. 114, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, it is filled with reasons unrelated to "war" debates in Congress. There are 23 or so “Whereas” clauses citing a failure to comply with U.N. Resolutions and broad statements without any facts suggesting the Iraq was going to attack the U.S. in the future. WMDs were the primary reason, WMDs that have never been found. In fact, Sadaam Hussein told his interrogator, an FBI Agent named George Piro, that Sadaam didn't think the U.S. would invade. And, he said he bluffed possession of WMDs to keep Iran at bay. That Sadaam intended to reconstitute his program is of no great moment. After all, it has been alleged that Russia and Syria were involved in moving the WMDs. Of course, Russia has its own WMDs and to be sure, wanted them back from Iraq. Former head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin, knows well how to use them, especially employing radioactive material to murder dissidents in other countries such as Alexander Litvinenko. Why not pass a "use of force" against these nations too?

Further, when one looks at the Resolution of 2002, we see factual violations relating solely to the U.N. and Security Council Resolutions—an unelected body. We see determinations by an unelected body on violations of its own resolutions. We also see a half-hearted, bald allegation that Al Quaeda who is known to have attacked the U.S. on 9/11 was also in Iraq. (This Al Quaeda in Iraq" allegation is unsupported by any facts in the declaration. According to FBI Interrogator Piro, Sadaam hated Al Quaeda because they were disruptive to his power.) So what does the resolution do exactly? By relying on a factual basis of "violations" of U.N. decrees, Congress knowingly allows itself to dodge constitutional duties to debate and declare war. In effect, what Congress has done is to substitute its judgment for this other body known as the U.N. And, the President is therefore authorized to determine what, where, when, and against whom to go to war. Even if that means being at war for 100, 1000 years---ad infinitum.

Turning to the text of the resolution, Section 3 (a) of the "Use of Force Resolution Authorization” Congress delegates its war power to the President and allows him and the Security Council to substitute the judgment of 535 elected congressman. Specifically, the President is empowered to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

What continuing threat? When one looks to the “Whereas” clauses, the only possible factual threat "continuing" is Iraq’s past conduct in the First Gulf War [i.e., use of force action] and its “violating its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions . . . .” Facts were not enumerated in the text. There was no fact indicating a threat to the United States contained in the Resolution. The Resolution of 2002 makes the United States the U.N. enforcer.

On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul made a motion to declare war on Iraq during discussion on H.J. Res. 114. Then Chairman Henry Hyde (now deceased) rejected Rep. Paul’s motion:

There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore.

There are those who claim the resolution is the same thing as a declaration of war. If a formal Declaration of War is the same thing as a “Use of Force Resolution,” then why would Rep. Hyde make this comment? Why wouldn’t Hyde simply tell Rep. Paul, “Ron, get over it; it’s the same thing.” If it's the same thing, then why not declare war? The simple answer is that Hyde knew Congress must avoid declaring war or a state of hostilities because of Article 39 of the U.N. Charter. This article is now the repository of declarations: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression . . . .”

But this isn’t all nor the crux of the matter. Hyde’s initial statement that the President was to use his judgment is most troubling. First, like Hyde and the rest of those who voted for it, the President deferred judgment on use of force to the Security Council. Deferring judgment isn’t the same thing as declaring a thing to exist, here a state of affairs. There was and is no need to declare war against Al Quaeda because this state of affairs already existed. Not so with Iraq.

What is it that the 2002 Resolution purported to make known? That the Security Council declared the state of hostility? That the Security Council gave “life and effect” to the use of force? What threat to “National Security” is the President defending us against? The Court in Boumediene v. Bush had the opportunity to clear this matter up but it chose not to.

Boumediene v. Bush

The flaw in both majority and dissenting opinions in Boumediene v. Bush is apparent. The majority presume a legal state of war with Iraq while the dissent juxtapose this state onto radical Islamic jihaadists. We are now embroiled in a religious crusade and a war that was never intended to be a religious war. This leads to further problems. Even Scalia’s dissent attempts to correct the Resolution of 2002 by reciting incident after incident where the United States was attacked by terrorists at large. As Scalia once said, he is not a textualist. If he were, he would have written that the Resolution of 2002 is defective because it fails to indicate that Congress believes the United States is in a state of hostility or partial state of war. He would have no trouble writing that the government has no personal jurisdiction over the detainees because no “enemy” has been established by "declaring" who that enemy is. Detaining “terrorists” is far more problematic than detaining the enemy. We know the enemy when war is declared because a declaration tells us who we are going after. Right now, the “enemy” is not simply Al Quaeda but any radical, transatlantic, fundamentalist jihadist Islamo-facist group in their own country. What does that mean exactly? What is the definition of a “terrorist”? How do we determine these extreme answers?

CONCLUSION

Raising the Constitution and its requirement to declare war is seen as archaic by those who find it problematic to follow it. In support, it is argued that because we've got it wrong for 60 years, there is no need to acknowledge the right path. Consider this analogy: Because we've had slaves for 60 years, outlawing slavery is now archaic. Absurd? It makes no sense unless it is acceptable to disregard the oath to preserve the Constitution. Since when did we arbitrarily find it right and pure to pick and choose parts of the Constitution that we should enforce? Words mean something. If not, the oath itself is meaningless. Worse, the Republic is meaningless.

When one purposefully ignores the oath and treats it with little imperative, as Rep. Hyde knowingly did, one makes the law political, subject to the arbitrary whims of elections. The will of the People, the source of authority to govern embodied in the Constitution, is simply ignored. While the Iraq war required a declaration, the war against Al Quaeda did not. I leave you with Doug Bandow's nice summation:

But the U.S. Constitution, to which the president swears allegiance, refers not to the U.N. but rather to the American Congress. Article 1, Sec. 8 (11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton indicated, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.

Of this, there simply is no doubt. Wrote James Madison in 1793, it is necessary to adhere to the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." Modern supporters of the doctrine of president-as-Caesar make much of the fact that convention delegates changed Congress' authority from "make" to "declare" war, but they did so, explained Madison, only to allow the president the authority to respond to a sudden attack. When Pierce Butler of South Carolina formally proposed giving the president the power to start war, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war." Butler's motion was quickly rejected.

The reasoning of the conferees in opposing Butler's measure was simple. Explained Virginia's George Mason, the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, approvingly observed that the new constitutional system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose."

In response to the UNICEF action, the Serbian Government has signed an agreement promising to radically downsize Serbian institutions. For more info, see the MDRI website or the MDRI YouTube Channel. To read the Committee on The Rights of the Child Report on Serbian Institutions,in PDF format, click here.

Dans cette lettre, le Président Bush confirme la position nationale claire des Etats-Unis d'Amérique considérant qu'une autonomie substantielle sous souveraineté marocaine est la seule solution possible au différend relatif au Sahara et qu'un Etat indépendant au Sahara n'est pas une option réaliste.

Tout en remerciant le Roi pour son leadership et sa détermination pour mettre fin à ce différend, le président Bush a souligné que la proposition d'autonomie soumise par le Royaume était crédible et sérieuse.

Par ailleurs, le Président Bush a exprimé l'espoir des Etats-Unis de voir les parties au conflit s'engager de manière plus approfondie dans le processus de négociations en cours et ce, suite à l'appel du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies pour des négociations plus substantielles, dans un esprit de réalisme et de compromis.

Source : AlJazeera
http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AB07C76C-38FB-4F1C-9A07-EA8CF4FEE31B.htm

Are all men really of equal worth? What supports this belief? What is a man's worth based on? I don't believe that all men are of the same value. This is a myth. This idea is really part of our social contract. We promise to treat each other as if we were of equal worth. This compromise is to everyone's benefit. I like it but the argument for it is weak.

Some thing's worth or value is a function of another's perspective. To who is it valuable? Something's value is correlated with its usefulness and necessity. Usefulness and necessity are also dependent on the circumstantial situation at hand. Because of these truths there can be no absolute standard for worth and it can never be said that all things always have the same worth, including humans.

In social animals there is usually a hierarchy. Inherently in a hierarchy there is no absolute equality between members of the group. Humans are social animals. We function best in groups, so naturally there will always be a hierarchy. Thus there is no real equality. Even from the groups perspective a lazy or nonproductive member cannot have the same worth as a fruitful one.

In the wild the animals whose design allows it to best exploit its environment and survive lives on, while the worst suited for the environment die off. In this sense there are no equals. Every animal is not identical to the next, and in most cases even within its own species (even bacteria mutate). Therefore if humans in comparison with each other are not identical in design and abilities, how can it be said that they have equal worth?

This phrase (all men....) in the Declaration of independence was meant to express that contrary the feudal system in Europe (where the King and nobility ruled), Americans believed that your families class or wealth should not dictate your worth in society. The Kings of Europe were said to have divine rights. Our founding fathers believed that if according to Bible, we were all created in God's image, we were of equal worth. Well, since there is no evidence for a God, nor is God relevant in what really dictates social class (wealth & power), this founding argument for equal worth is not worth much. Besides being in the likeness of a God doesn't infer equality among men. The bible itself condones of slavery.

Equal worth among humans is a delusion that helps maintain a cohesive, stable, productive society. If we all share in this delusion we will feel better about ourselves and our society. It is a functional delusion.

The Number one movie currently at the box office is Hancock, and if you didn't know, you do now.

So last week, I met this guy when I came back from the movie. I was so pumped up and ethusiastic that I coudn't help but talk about the movie.

"Have you seen Will Smith's Hancock?", I asked.

"Does Will Smith have a sex tape?", he asked. I couldn't make out whether he was excited about a Will Smith sex tape or just the idea of Will Smith having one surprised him.

"Jesus! You have such a dirty mind. It's a movie, damn it!", I replied, although I wasn't entirely suprised that his mind would go there.

"So he was naked in the movie?", he had this look on his face, like he finally understood.

But he didn't.

"Hancock's the name of the movie! Jeez!", I was beginning to loose interest in the conversation.

"So it's an implied Hancock. There's no actual Hancock in the movie I guess", he was smiling. He thought he has finally got it.

But again, he didn't.

"Will Smith is Hancock", I said.

"Someone else's? I'm kinda confused", his face was blank. All that understanding-look was gone.

I started to feel a little better.

"No. That's his name", I tried to explain.

"OK now I'm totally lost.", indeed he was. 

"Why would anyone name their kid Hancock?", he continued.

For the first time, he had a point.

"You have a point, but- ", I started to explain, but he cuts me off.

"I mean, with a name like that, he must've had a hard time on the playground when he was a kid", he looked like he had a point.

As usual, he didn't. Sadly, he didn't realize that he didn't.

"Luckily for him, not everyone's mind is as corrupted as yours", I said.

I could see this conversation was going nowhere. So I left.

Anyway, the movie is about this superhero, John Hancock, that everybody hates, because quite frankly, he's a jackass. Hancock, obviously is played by no other person than the legend, Hollywood's royalty, the fresh prince himself; Will Smith. I don't want to go into much details about the movie here because I'm reviewing it for neXus and I'll post a link up here later. But meanwhile, all you need to know is that the movie kicks ass and it's a must watch.

By the way if you've been wondering, Hancock is indeed a name. I did a little research and found at least four famous people and an insurance company with the name John Hancock (The insurance company was named after one of the Hancocks)

John Hancock, one of the signers of The Declaration Of Independence.

The insurance company was in fact the "Hancock" in the movie.

Confused? Don't know what I'm talking about?

Go see Will Smith's Hancock... you know you want to ;)

The signers of the Declaration, weary and tired, were anxious to leave now that their connection to Great Britain had been forever severed.  First, a few last minute details needed to be settled.

A committe to supervise the printing of the Declaration was elected and a resolution passed to have copies sent for public reading to the assemblies of the newly independent states.  Copies were also sent to General Washington for proclamation to the Continental Army and to all the churches to be read on the first Lord's day after it was received.

Before concluding the historic session on July 4th, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were elected to prepare the official seal, the Great Seal of the newly united states. 

On July 8, 1776 the Declaration of Independence would be read for the first time in public, announced by the ringing of the Liberty Bell.

(c) Patriotic Expressions and Patriotic Minute 2008

Not for reproduction without permission from author

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.

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.

He 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.

by anna belle, Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:05:25 AM EST

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 in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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 the 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 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 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 Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond the 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 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 Powers 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, burnt 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 among 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 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 the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Signed by ORDER and
in BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS
JOHN HANCOCK,
PRESIDENT.

ATTEST.
CHARLES THOMSON,
SECRETARY.

PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED BY JOHN DUNLAP.

----

Text copied from Wikisource

For a list of other countries' declarations of independence, visit Wikipedia

Happy 4th of July !

Imagine the nervousness and intrepidation of the Royal Messenger who handed the King this little note from the Colonists (Errors in grammar and spelling are Mr. Jeffersons):

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 harrass 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 benefits 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.

He 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 Brittish [[sic]] 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.

Originally uploaded by superbomba

In the United States, Independence Day commonly known as the Fourth of July is a federal holiday commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, declaring independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. Congress approved the wording of the Declaration on July 4 and then sent it to the printer. Whether John Hancock, as the elected President of the Second Continental Congress, or anyone else signed the document that day is unknown, because that document has been lost.

On August 2 in the following month, a second document was signed by Hancock and other delegates.

Ha! Take that King George!

Onderstaande beelden bezorgen me echt kippevel: Sarkozy geeft een persmededeling, samen met de kinderen van Ingrid (Mélanie en Lorenzo)... De moeder van Ingrid Betancourt zou reeds onderweg zijn, binnen een uur vertrekt een vliegtuig waarmee de kinderen ook zullen vertrekken...

[dailymotion id=x5zwx2]

Dit zijn de beelden van de bekendmaking van de bevrijding van Ingrid Betancourt, vertaald in het Frans. Onvoorstelbaar, zo langverwacht en nu ze daar zijn, zo onwerkelijk...

[dailymotion id=x5zwy1]

The shocking discovery of the plot to assassinate General Washington and his key officers was still the topic of discussion around the port of New York.  General Washington had approved the sentence of hanging for one of his favorite bodyguards involved in the plot.  It was carried out only 4 days earlier.

For days now, the harbor around New York received more and more British and mercenary ships with soldiers ordered to stop the rebellion in America.

Fully aware of the discussions and debate by Congress, General Washington assembled his rag-tag troops.  In silence, the militia men stood within sight of the growing number of ships in the harbor.  Washington let them know it was now about time for them to determine if Americans were to be free men or slaves.

FIRST THINGS FIRST

Finally, they had reached the turning point.  The proposed resolution for independence was a step into the future.  No matter how rough or dangerous the road ahead is, they must go forward together and show the world a united front.

The divided colonies need to put aside their differences and rivalries and form a strong union.  They need to make a treaty with a foreign country which could supply them with munitions.

The debates had divided the delegates over boundaries, taxation and representation as well as whether Congress should have the right to limit the size of the states or have jurisdiction over the Indians and if they should be regulated by Congress.

Before the Congress could consider these issues, they must achieve independence first.

A REVOLUTIONARY VOTE

It was raining again on July 2nd and the Congress nervously anticipated the vote on the question of independence.  It was late in the afternoon and the delegates tired of waiting all day for all the delegates to be present.

The Secretary of Congress read the resolution to declare indpendence.  It contained three clauses that would dissolve all connection with the mother country and become free and independent states - to form a confederation - to secure alliances.  Hearing no objections, after three weeks of debate, the Secretary called the role...

After the final tally was made, twelve colonies had voted and all twelve were in favor of independence, with New York abstaining.  Any olive branch offered by Great Britain would now be on the point of a bayonet.

John Adams wrote his wife, Abigail: "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America.  I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival.  It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.  It ought to be solemnized by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.

You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not.  I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.  Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory.  I can see that the end is worth more than all means; that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we [may regret] it, which I trust in God we shall not."

(c) Patriotic Expressions and Patriotic Minute 2008

Not for reproduction without permission from author