Cherry picking the Declaration of Independence

July 05, 2007 by barbara

by barbara

Yesterday, a handful of people read the Clothesline post that included the full text of the Declaration of Independence.

UPDATE: (Here's the link to the full version.)--thanks S, "A" and R.

A few possible conclusions:

  • Folks were too busy to blog surf on the Fourth.
  • Folks already know the full text of the Declaration and don’t have to read it again.
  • Folks don’t care.

I deleted the post last night. Don’t recall ever having done that before. Pissy? Probably. Also symptomatic of bone-deep weariness and frustration. I do not own this condition, by the way. I know it to exist in many and sense it in others. Full disclosure: Had I gone to a blog and seen the Declaration posted there, I’m not certain I’d have read the whole thing either. So many words, so little time, dontcha know?!

There is much in the Declaration that is instructive in present time. Some parts of it, were they cut and pasted elsewhere, could easily be taken for Y2007 commentary on the reign of this latter day King George. For example: (Click to read.)

    . . . 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.

Once more, with feeling. Governments are instituted among men (and women), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. BushCo has seized control of every check and every modicum of balance carefully put in place to ensure that their vision for the U.S. never becomes what it now is: a secretive, tops-down, wannabe totalitarian state, moving toward Dick-tatorship.

    . . . 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.

BushCo thoroughly understands this and labored tirelessly to seize control while we suffered their evil in relative silence. And even when the silence was broken, it was mostly talk, talk, talk, unaccompanied by action.

    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.

Has it come to this? I don’t know what revolution looks like in 2007. I thought I knew in November 2006 when Democrats made huge gains in the House and Senate. I thought we’d staged a coup. But no, that quickly morphed into nothing more than silence with the implication that something – that amorphous something – might happen. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. Seven months. Waxman, Conyers and Leahy notwithstanding, I see little evidence that we are being represented by our elected representatives.

    He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

And, I would add, BushCo has refused to honor laws put in place to protect the nation from administrations precisely like theirs.

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

Think SCOTUS. Think U.S. attorneys. Think Gonzales. But please, think!

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

Think Guantanamo. Think extreme rendition. Think trials of BushCo obstruction of justice perpetrators whose verdicts are overturned with the stroke of a malignant, poison pen.

    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.

Drafted 231 years ago or yesterday? Yes. Think impeachment.

Posted in

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) | July 5, 2007 - 6:18pm

Wow! I lazily spent much of yesterday online, googling around. I went to the Declaration of Independence, just for kicks, because I remembered reading it not too long ago, and being surprised at it's detailed outlining of the King's offenses, and delighted at it's "war as a very very last resort" message. All the fire work hulla baloo, not to mention the verbal clap trap of the belligerent right wing, would lead you to believe that July 4th is all about war making us free. But the founders really did try everything, including sweet reason and dialogue first, didn't they?
So I thought I'd try to stick it onto a comment on someone's post at clothesline, but discovered, hey, ya beat me to it! So yeah, everyone, read the Declaration. There's so much of King George in our current George, isn't there?

»

Rita (not verified) | July 5, 2007 - 6:27pm

Maybe it's just a handful of people who read it, but I appreciated your post. I had my 10 year old son read it with me. I have to admit, his attention did start to wander in the middle, but he stuck with it. So thank you.

»

barbara aka babs (not verified) | July 6, 2007 - 8:03am

Well see? Just when I find myself in total despair for all of us, I discover things like a 10-year-old listening to the Declaration. There is hope in the little ones, I think. Can we lower the voting age to 8? And were you both (A and R) as surprised as I was to re-discover all that was in the D of I? Hadn't read it through for a long time and found its relevance to 2007 pretty amazing. Human nature? Prescience? PTSD? Crikey. The Founders nailed it, eh?!

»