Declaration of Independance General #1

How many of you have actually read the Declaration of Independence and sat down and thought how it applied to you?

It seems as though the list of grievances that spurred on the original DoI are all occurring today and these threads are dedicated to providing evidence of such grievances.

How you can help;
Simply find a news article relating to one of the grievances below and post it with a brief description.

1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
9. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
10. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
11. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
12. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
13. 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:
14. For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
15. For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
16. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
17. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
18. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
19. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
20. 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
21. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
22. For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
23. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
24. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.

Attached: DoI.png (1472x986, 183.46K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2019/03/26/arts/television/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped.html
thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was
vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938372/marijuana-legalization-federal-prohibition-drug-scheduling-system
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/gab-the-right-wing-twitter-rival-just-got-its-app-banned-by-google/
apnews.com/7f6ed0b1bda047339f22789a10f64ac4
etymonline.com/word/wholesome
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

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

Basically means the laws were not applied equally

Smollet had charges dropped for no reason, he should have stood trial where the truth can come out. If he didn't do it then he should be happy to go to trial and prove his innocence, but now we have no way of knowing as the laws were not applied equally.
nytimes.com/2019/03/26/arts/television/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped.html

Hillary should have been prosecuted, but the top officials basically said fuck it.
thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was

Well it doesn't apply to me since pieces of paper are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is (((who))) enforces the law, not what the law actually is as written. But your idea isn't terrible, there are a lot of patriotic people who might be able to use it as an entry level baby redpill.

Attached: 1428490673101.jpg (453x372, 125.83K)

2. 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.

Marijuana law throughout the country has taken on a different stance than the national standard, prosecuting some while allowing businesses to function. There is no standard nationwide, and even DC has decriminalized it. Even with decriminalization its still federally illegal. This is the fed basically saying fuck it I dont want to vote on that because it may hurt my political career, but the states and citizens want a referendum.

vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938372/marijuana-legalization-federal-prohibition-drug-scheduling-system

Bamp for potential.

3. 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.

The only thing I can put my finger on with this one is the banning of conservative groups online. Once they gather enough followers to form an online thinkgroup they are systematically banned. When they form their own full applications like GAB they are banned from the ios and android platforms.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/gab-the-right-wing-twitter-rival-just-got-its-app-banned-by-google/

Working on my campaign is getting dreary so I figured I'd help out online for a bit.
I'm writing these as I go, but hopefully others will chip in.

4. 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.

copypasta
This refers to situations that arose in Massachusetts and Virginia, when the colonial governors declared that the meeting sites of the assemblies should be moved for reasons of safety. In both cases, the new sites were at some distance from the places where the public records were kept; and the members of the assemblies charged that moving the sites of their meetings interfered with the public business and prevented them from access to information necessary to conduct it.

I can take this as the freedom of information, basically we as citizens have to file lawsuits to get any information out of the government even though it would be totally easy to just have them published online for all to read.

Heres a shitty example of someone who wanted what should be public information and instead the citizen was sued by the agency she was requesting the info from
apnews.com/7f6ed0b1bda047339f22789a10f64ac4

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

cpoypasta
This charge refers to edicts issued occasionally by the King that the representative bodies of the colonies be dissolved for various reasons. For example, in 1768, the representative assembly of Massachusetts issued a letter for circulation charging the King and Parliament with infringing the rights of Americans. After this letter had come to the attention of the British government, Governor Bernard of Massachusetts was ordered to dissolve the assembly unless the letter were rescinded. Letters were also sent to the governors of other colonies ordering them to prevail upon the members of their respective assemblies to ignore the letter. When the Massachusetts House voted not to rescind the letter, the Governor ordered it dissolved.

Same thing as number 3 and 4 in the modern era, basically the preventing of allowing ideas of the citizens to spread. Communications bans like twitter and facebook.

I've read it and listened to it multiple times. It's very pleasant. I like that it's a one time thing, and didn't live long enough to see itself become the villain - like the constitution. There's a part where it mentions British/American consanguinity that I like to break out during race discussions.

6. 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.

copypasta
This charge goes to the heart of one of the fundamental disagreements between the American colonists and the British government. Upon those occasions when their representative assemblies were dissolved, the people of the various colonies often formed special conventions for the purpose of passing laws and electing representatives to the Continental Congress. The people understood that their right of representation arises from their equal liberty with all other human beings; that equal liberty requires that no one has the right to rule another without that other's consent. That means that the right of representation in the lawmaking body, the legislature, depended, not upon the caprice of their governors, but originated with the people. If the King disbanded their legislatures, for whatever reason, the colonists believed that the right of self-government reverted to the people, and that they would then be justified in doing whatever they deemed necessary to reestablish representative government, even to the point of calling special conventions to govern them.

The reference to "Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within," recalls the Founders' understanding that life, liberty, and property are endangered when men live outside of government–in a "state of nature." In the state of nature, human beings have the right to form governments to protect themselves, in whatever manner they deem best.

I can't think of anything happening in the US like this right now honestly, please feel free to contribute if you do see something like this.

7. 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.

copypasta
This charge relates to the King's opposition to various colonial laws passed for the purpose of encouraging immigration to America. The British government feared that such encouragement would reduce the population of England and lure away workers who would otherwise be employed in its domestic industries. In addition, the King issued orders that made it more difficult to obtain land by royal grant. Americans believed that one part of the unalienable right to liberty was the liberty to make use of property to provide for oneself and one's family. To that end, government should make unused land available to the people by homestead or auction, so that it can be put to use by their labor. The King, however, treated all land in America as his, to be granted or to be withheld from others at his pleasure, even though neither he nor his officers had expended any labor upon it.

While the colonies needed an influx of workers and openely called for it, we as a civilization have called for less immigration and having nothing but trouble simply deporting people that are already here illegally, i would put those two in the same concept but im sure others will disagree

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

copypasta
This charge pertains to a situation in North Carolina that originated from an act of the English government disallowing a law passed by the North Carolina legislature for establishing courts of justice and regulating their proceedings. The English objected to this law on the grounds that the establishment of courts of justice was an action reserved to the sovereign power, which belonged solely to the King. As a result, North Carolina was compelled to do without courts of law for a long time. Similar situations existed in South Carolina and Pennsylvania. These were all violations of the principle that just government derives from the consent of the governed, and that government exists to secure rights. Without a judiciary to punish criminals and to enable injured individuals to sue the injurer for redress, life, liberty, and property will be insecure.

Here we go again with the unequal or lack completely of a governing system that protects the citizens from the wrongdoings of others. While we do have systems in place nowadays we can lump this one in with #1 in the unfair treatment by the judicial system.

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

copypasta
This charge refers to the need to separate the judiciary from the executive, in order to make government abuse of power less likely. Otherwise the people's unalienable rights would be endangered. It should be compared with Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in Office." In 1761 the English government declared that the tenure of judges in colonial courts should be at the discretion of the King. This led to a crisis in New York in that same year, when the colony's judges refused to carry out their duties unless their commissions under the King were for continuance in office during good behavior. The New York legislature passed a law stipulating such tenure. When the British government learned of this law, it sent instructions to the colonial governors forbidding them from assenting to any act passed by their legislatures pertaining to the tenure of judges.

I would attune this more to the lawyer/judge relationships today, my uncle is a lawyer and we talk frequently about the system, if the judge likes the lawyer he will let clients off rather than apply the laws accordingly

I'm heading out to lunch with the wife, Ill be back to continue in a few hours.

In the meantime feel free to add to the list
founding.com is a great resource if you dont understand exactly what each grievance means

Lol, wholesome laws are retarded. Legalizing prostitution would improve actual public morality, but it LOOKS unwholesome, so the people who support it and the people who should support it are totally inverted populations. Legislating wholesomeness is dumb when people don’t even know how to do it right.

To be fair here to the king.
The new world colonists were total scum.
They demanded all the rights, privileges and protections of crown citizens but were unwilling to shoulder any of the burdens/costs.

Refused to pay anything but the most token taxation. Making them the least taxed in all the Empire despite the substantial costs of their defence.
Wouldn't abide by the treaty negotiated between the crown and the native nations that clearly marked the borders of the new world colonies and the native nations. Which is essentially the same as taking their dick out and slapping him in the face with it. They made a liar of the king.
And just constantly caused problems for the British government. Then had the audacity to make demands of the crown, as if they had done something to deserve them.

By the time they started talking revolution the king and parliament had already had enough of the new world colonies and their collective shit.

Attached: 1522054737421.png (594x483, 97.36K)

I could be wrong, but I believe the word "Wholesome" is an entirely invented word by Wonder Bread to better sell their bleached, dried paste shingles.
We're all so fucking mindfucked.
Nothing is real.

etymonline.com/word/wholesome
Earliest know usage was 13th century.

ill be back tomorrow to finish what i started
things kinda got away from me today

OP DO YOU HAVE IT IN A PDF?

Bump 25 to 1

While I agree with your point the example is misrepresented. The lawsuit is the only way the agencies have to reconcile a request they think is "harmful" without having to deny the ame request from multiple people over time. Since the suits seek no damages and only a ruling to "protect" the information saught, it seems justified. Seems because there is the issue of federal agencies and agents being protected from lawsuits while they can sue you; clearly bullshit inequality. Also, the information should, and will, be public and free to access without request because it is "public records".

I often characterize your point here as such:
Private information must be made public because terrorism.
Public information must be made private because national secuity.

Interesting thread OP
I think the biggest redpill from this document is the often under appreciated Right to Revolution. It’s clearly laid out, you have a right to rise up and cast off your chains if you are oppressed. However civil war proves the oppressor has a right to fight to keep you under their thumb.

Nevertheless this right is real. You can see if in some state constitutions such as New Hampshire. Some might say that’s what the 2nd Amendment is for but I don’t think so.
Getting people to swallow this pill is important, that we are at Weimar/Colonial US levels at this point.

2016 dnc block of bernie sanders and the democratic corporation's candidate to compete against Trump. Even though it is a "private company", so are all governing bodies such as cities and agencies, it is still clearly the government, as sad as that reality is. The people voted for Bernie, not Hillary. Then, when the people voted for Trump, not Hillary, they tried to overturn that action, to, and very much still are.

This is an interesting one because it looks like the opposite problem right now. However, the idea remains the same: People are getting run over by the feds and it disrupts industry. An often unmentioned factoid about the decay of domestic enterprise is foreign buyers receive loans and it is otherwise prohibitively expensive to get a business license.

Important part of this is the caveat of land appropriation. On the west coast, gov't owned land can be up to 40% of the state. I think we all remember what happened on the Bundy ranch as well.

People keep screaming FASCIST but this seems a lot more like communism to me.