Powerline Blog Posting On CNN's Biases

                                                         Why CNN Is A Failure
                                                                John Hinderaker



        
CNN’s ratings are in the toilet, and its president resigned last week. The network’s defenders say the problem is that it is an objective, “just the facts” network, in an era when most viewers prefer the partisan approaches they can get from Fox and MSNBC. But no one who actually watches CNN buys that. Scott and I have both written about the horror of being trapped at an airplane gate, and being forced to listen to an infinite loop of CNN’s liberal commentary.
CNN represents the passive-aggressive Left. MSNBC is unrestrained id, but CNN can never fully surrender to its liberal impulses. It tries to maintain a fig leaf of neutrality. But CNN can’t get through the day without betraying what it really thinks, often in underhanded ways. Thus, when CNN did a story on Chick-fil-A today, what did it focus on? The merits of the controversy? The fact that more than one Democratic government official has threatened to violate the company’s constitutional rights, because its CEO is opposed to gay marriage? No. In a dog whistle to its liberal audience, CNN focused on the fact that Todd and Sarah Palin, along with thousands of other Americans, tweeted photos of themselves eating at Chick-fil-A:

CNN introduced its segment with Pink’s “Stupid Girls,” a song which is obviously inappropriate for a cable news bumper, and evidently was intended as a comment on Palin’s support for Chick-fil-A.
Why is the fact that Chick-fil-A’s CEO opposes gay marriage newsworthy? At least half of all Americans oppose gay marriage. So what is the point? There is, indeed, a news story lurking here: public officials in at least two major cities, all of them Democrats, vowed to violate Chick-fil-A’s constitutional rights by denying them permits to operate in their cities because their CEO’s political views are not 100% congruent with those of the Democratic Party–as of today, that is; until two months ago, President Obama was opposed to gay marriage too.
So what does CNN say about the real scandal that is hiding here in plain sight? Nothing. This is it, as you can hear in the video: “Several communities now trying to block Chick-fil-A from coming into their cities.” As though that were completely normal, and constitutional; and as though “communities” were trying to do it, as opposed to two or three liberal Democrats.
This kind of pathetic news coverage explains why CNN has become irrelevant, and now is going down the drain.

Commentary

This whole Chick-fil-a thing started because of the idiot Mayor Of Boston Tom Menino a left wing dumb ass

Setting The Record Straight On NYT

Opinion/Editorial

  I know that I normally do this post on Sunday mornings but I am glad that did because it is one to set a record straight.This mornings second lead OPED in the New York Times "Republicans vs. Women" should say "Conservatives vs. Women" since the NYT is now carrying the water for RINOS.
  It begins "Even with a persistent gender gap in a presidential election year, House Republicans have not given up on their campaign to narrow access to birth control, abortion care and lifesaving cancer screenings. Far from it.A new Republican spending proposal revives some of the more extreme attacks on women’s health and freedom that were blocked by the Senate earlier in this Congress. The resurrection is part of an alarming national crusade that goes beyond abortion rights and strikes broadly at women’s health in general.These setbacks are recycled from the Congressional trash bin in the fiscal 2013 spending bill for federal health, labor and education programs approved by a House appropriations subcommittee on July 18 over loud objections from Democratic members to these and other provisions.The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars — a patently unconstitutional provision. It would also eliminate financing for Title X, the effective federal family-planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Without this program, some women would die, and unintended pregnancies would rise, resulting in some 400,000 more abortions a year and increases in Medicaid-related costs, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health."
  Playing politics and class/gender warfare at the same time NYT keep it up.
  It continues on "Pushed by the subcommittee’s chairman, Denny Rehberg, a Montana Republican, the budget plan stands little chance of being passed in its current form. Congress is about to leave on its August break, and, without explanation, the full Appropriations Committee’s consideration of the bill has been postponed indefinitely. It may be that Speaker John Boehner wants to avoid a controversy heading toward November that shifts focus from the economy.

Even so, the subcommittee’s anti-woman work product is a statement of Republican policy. It is endorsed by the full committee chairman, Harold Rogers, and will be a starting point for negotiations on a budget deal with the Senate. Furthermore, when Congress puts forth bad ideas to curtail birth control and abortion access, they tend to spread, helping to inspire copycat bills in the states. Since House Republicans first tried to defund Planned Parenthood, for example, similar attacks have been enacted in six states, most recently in North Carolina earlier this month.

There is a striking overlap between the subcommittee’s regressive politics and the polices espoused by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. That makes it a window on what a Romney presidency could mean for women’s rights and lives."

 This has little to so with Romney and has to do with the NYT trying to paint all Republicans with the same brush along with the Tea Party movement it won't happen NYT.

Former NAACP Leader Tells Obama To Smarten Up

Fmr. NAACP Chief C.L. Bryant Blasts Obama At Conservative Conference

"[With] one voice tonight so many of you from all over this world have come here to the land of the free and the home of the brave and we want to let you know that we have always defended people who embraced liberty all over this world,” he proclaimed. “And these patriots will not stand down in the face of their enemies!" C.L. Bryant said at the conservative FreePAC convention last night.

"There are those among us who would enslave us. The reach and the scope of big government is the new plantation and if we are not careful we will fall under the spell of government handouts. That is why we will send this message tonight from Dallas, Texas, that we're going to sweep clean the White House," Bryant said.

Mr. Bryant is the former president of the NAACP's Garland, Texas Chapter. In March, faced off with CNN's Roland Martin over what he complained was the left's exploitation of the Trayvon Martin case.

Commentary

This guy is great

Boston Mayor A Democrat Doesnot Practice What His Party Preaches

                                               
                                             Mayor plays chicken Boston Herald Editorial



We’re trying to imagine a big-city mayor telling the world that he refuses to grant government permits to a restaurant business whose CEO happens to support gay marriage. The condemnation of such an abuse of government power would be swift, overwhelming and appropriate.
But Boston Mayor Tom Menino apparently doesn’t see any problem using the power of his government office to issue threats to a private company whose CEO does not happen to share the mayor’s own personal or political views.
After depriving one Boston neighborhood of a much-needed grocery store because he opposes Walmart’s labor policies, Menino is now turning his attention to Chick-fil-A, proclaiming that it will be a cold day in hell before one of its restaurants will be allowed to open near Faneuil Hall.
“You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population,” Menino huffed, adding, “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies.”
Their “policies,” as far as we can tell, include 1) selling chicken and 2) closing on Sundays because their religious CEO believes his employees should spend time with their families.
What Menino really objects to are CEO Dan Cathy’s personal beliefs as well as his public statements in opposition to same-sex marriage. He may also object to the money that Cathy’s private foundation has donated to Christian and pro-family (anti-gay, to opponents) groups.
None of that amounts to a discriminatory company “policy.”
But in Menino’s city (and yes, if he can withhold permits on a subjective basis, it is indeed “Menino’s city”) the punishment for failing to toe the progressive line is banishment.
Northeastern University students recently talked administrators out of putting Chick-fil-A in a student center based on the same concerns over Cathy’s beliefs. But that was the decision of a private institution. This kind of threat from a powerful government official is not only an embarrassment, if carried out it would likely violate Cathy’s constitutional rights. We wouldn’t blame Chick-fil-A and its prospective landlord if they decided it wasn’t worth the fight; clearly that is what Menino is hoping, too.

Commentary

Hypocrisy runs amok still in the Democrat Party

WAKE UP! RINOS In The Tea Party Movement

              

Hey those of you RINOS still left in the tea party movement who only want to believe in fiscal conservatism wake up this is more precious than $$$$$ its about life.

NYT Wrong On Israel

Opinion/Editorial

   Now the New York Times this morning is attempting to start a fight with our best ally in the world Israel by meddling in their political affairs.This mornings second lead OPED in the NYT "Israel’s Embattled Democracy" as if the NYT knows anything about Democracy when all they support is Communism/Socialism.
 It begins in their usual BS fashion but going after Israel's Likud Party (to you idiot RINOS and Liberals Likud is like the Tea Party in Israel) "Six decades after Israel’s founding, its citizens remain deeply at odds over the future of their democracy. The latest illustration is the disintegration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new governing coalition after only 10 weeks.Mr. Netanyahu and his hard-line Likud Party, supported by smaller right-wing parties, has had a majority in Parliament since 2009. But when Shaul Mofaz and his centrist Kadima Party joined the government in May, the merger created a much broader coalition. It seemed to give Mr. Netanyahu — a disappointing, risk-averse leader — unprecedented authority to get things done."
 Just to set the record straight since the NYT has a hard time with getting anything right Israel has always been a nation just scattered abroad throughout the world the UN six decades ago recognized them finally.One more thing again just to set the record straight it's the Palestinians that cause all the trouble for the peace not to happen.
 Here is the NYT endorsing the Israeli version of tolerance and diversity BS "Mr. Mofaz became deputy prime minister and outlined an encouraging agenda. The first priority would be integrating minority populations of ultra-Orthodox Jews and Israeli Arabs into the military and civilian service. The coalition would also revive peace negotiations with the Palestinians, pass a national budget and enact electoral reforms. But the coalition quickly collapsed over the issue of military service, which has exacerbated tensions between secular and religious Jews and with Arabs. Secular Israelis are increasingly resentful of the tendency of the ultra-Orthodox to refuse to serve and to separate themselves from the country’s mainstream."
 It didnt work here in the good ol' USA and it won't work especially in Israel.
 Here is more of the blame the right "Demographic changes are making political compromise harder. Experts say an influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union and a high birthrate in the ultra-Orthodox community mean that many Israelis have a cultural mistrust of the democratic values on which the state was founded. The Palestinian population is also expanding, hastening a day when Jews could be a minority."
 This ends from the mouth of the NYT editorial board "One of Israel’s greatest strengths is its origins as a democratic state committed to liberal values and human rights. Those basic truths are in danger of being lost."
 Yeah brain-dead liberalism it worked here NOT! it just causes more heart-ache and anguish on everyone and it divides instead of uniting.

Mark Levin Sets It Straight

Mark Levin On Shooting: The Right Is Always The "Political Scapegoat"

MARK LEVIN on the Aurora massacre: What most of us don't do is search for political scapegoats. And the scapegoats always seem to be the same -- us. Somehow those of us who are law-abiding, who preach of the value of the individual, who oppose things like abortion and defending the greatest health care system in the world, because we embrace a culture of life, somehow we're to blame.

It doesn't matter if the murderer is mentally ill, as in the Tucson case. If he's disgruntled about something, including himself or whatever, they look for reasons to find out if he has any connections to us. So the media go hunting for reasons to make disgusting allegations. It's cold-blooded. There's no compassion. They're looking to make news. They're looking to drive ratings. This is just bizarre and it's time to call them out on it.

###

We have a right to have 24, 48 hours of mourning for our fellow citizens. There needs to be respect for the dead, and prayers for the living. There needs to be a point of which the hounds are called off, at least for a day or two. But apparently not. When you have rouge, politically motivated reporters like Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos -- and somehow Stephanopoulos is getting a pass -- both of ABC News trying to turn this into a yet another disgusting attack on the Tea Party, trying to draw connections between the killer and the Tea Party, it doesn't get any lower than that.

Boy these people hate us, don't they? I mean they really, really hate us. The truth is if ABC News corporate had an ounce of integrity, it would fire both of them. Right now.

Now what can we do as a people? I've been thinking about this. What can we do as a people in response to such a horrendous crime? I tell you what we can do. Shut off our TVs, go to a quiet place and say a prayer for these people and then thank God that we live in the greatest nation on the face of the earth. And then if you want to see this Batman movie, then by God go see it. We're Americans. And we're not going to allow some low-life mass murderer, a coward, change who we are and what we do.

And let the idiots on cable TV talk to themselves. You don't need to watch this. Let them debate among themselves. Let the idiots who anchor morning TV shows talk in circles among themselves, bring on politicians and political advocates telling you why your rights should be curtailed. These people don't shed any light onto anything. They have agendas. So don't frustrated yourself. Don't upset yourself in that regard. Focus on what matters.

Don't Tell Conservatives What To Take Seriously

                                   By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: July 15The Washington Post


                                                            A challenge to conservatives


  
It’s good that conservatives are finally taking seriously the problems of inequality and declining upward mobility. It’s unfortunate that they often evade the ways in which structural changes in the economy, combined with conservative policies, have made matters worse.
Occupy Wall Street, whatever its future, will always merit praise for placing inequality at the center of our politics. The biggest sign of the Occupiers’ success: Conservatives once stubbornly insisted that inequality wasn’t a problem because the United States was the land of opportunity and upward mobility. Now they are facing the fact that we are by no means the most socially mobile country in the world.
Reports from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and others show that social mobility is greater elsewhere, notably in Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden and Germany.
What do these countries have in common? Not to put too fine a point on it, all have national policies that are, in right-wing parlance, more “socialist” or (to be precise) social democratic than ours. They guarantee their citizens health insurance. They have stronger union movements and more generous welfare states. They tend to keep higher education more affordable. In most cases, especially Germany’s, they have robust apprenticeship and job training programs. They levy higher taxes.
The lesson from this list is not that cutting back government, gutting unions and reducing taxes on the rich will re-create an America of opportunity. On the contrary, we need more active and thoughtful government policies to become again the nation we claim to be.
We also need to be more candid about the large forces that are buffeting the American middle class. Writing in The Nation about Timothy Noah’s excellent new book, “The Great Divergence,” William Julius Wilson, the distinguished Harvard sociologist, nicely summarized the factors Noah sees as explaining rising disparities of wealth and income.
They included “the increasing importance of a college degree due to the shortage of better-educated workers; trade between the United States and low-wage nations; changes in government policy in labor and finance; and the decline of the labor movement. He also considers the extreme changes in the wage structure of corporations and the financial industry, in which American CEOs typically receive three times the salaries earned by their European counterparts.”
Most conservatives accept the importance of education but then choose to ignore all the other forces Noah describes.
Recently, my friends David Brooks and Michael Gerson used their columns to address the decline in mobility. It’s to the credit of these two conservatives that they did so, yet both found ways of downplaying the challenge inequality poses to conservatism itself.
Brooks cited a fine study by Robert Putnam, also a Harvard scholar, noting that the different parenting styles of the upper middle class and the working class are aggravating inequalities. Brooks’s conclusion: “Liberals are going to have to be willing to champion norms that say marriage should come before child-rearing and be morally tough about it. Conservatives are going to have to be willing to accept tax increases or benefit cuts so that more can be spent on the earned-income tax credit and other programs that benefit the working class.”
Yes, parenting (including the time crunch that two- or three-income working-class families face) is part of the issue, which is why I also admire Putnam’s study. But the balance in Brooks’s call to arms is entirely false. It’s not 1969 anymore. Progressives — including Wilson, Barack Obama and, if I may say so, yours truly — have been talking about the importance of family breakdown for decades. Brooks rightly acknowledges the need for measures to help those skidding down the class structure. The barrier here is not liberal attitudes toward the family but conservative attitudes toward government.
Gerson also said sensible things about promoting a “broad diffusion of skills and social capital” but then closed by accusing liberals of wanting to “soak the rich” and insisting that “economic redistribution is not the answer.”
Actually, liberals are not for “soaking the rich,” unless you consider the Clinton-era tax rates some kind of socialist bath. And as the experience of the more social democratic countries shows, a modest amount of “economic redistribution” — to offset the radical redistribution toward the very rich of recent decades — can begin the process of restoring the kind of mobility we once bragged about.
My challenge to conservatives worried about inequality is to follow the logic of their concern to what may be some uncomfortable conclusions, especially in an election year.

Commentary

This guy thinks David Brooks New YorkTimes Columnist is a Conservative give me a break.this Dionne guy is a dumb ass

Opinion/Editorial

  Now all of the sudden like everything else the New York Times Editorial Board are experts in drilling for oil its too bad that they are not experts in giving a real opinion instead of the usual left wing BS.
 Their OPED this morning "Drilling Strategies, Sensible and Fantastical" make it seem as if they are now experts in drilling for oil which of course they cannot be because the giant that they claim they are in the field of journalism case in point which they struggle at mightly I may add so how can they be alleged experts in the oil industry.The point is they are trying to destroy our economy by wanting to destroy our oil industry.
 Their rant begins "The Republicans and Mitt Romney have relentlessly accused President Obama of not moving swiftly enough to tap the nations’ considerable offshore reserves of oil and natural gas."
Which I have to say is true.
  This is a line of BS "It is a tired complaint. Except for a necessary drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil spill in 2010, Mr. Obama has always embraced offshore oil and gas exploration as an important component of a rounded energy strategy. What he has not embraced is the drill-now-drill-everywhere approach of President George W. Bush, now embodied in a House bill that would open the entire continental shelf and all of Alaska’s waters to drilling."
 Obama has not embraced offshore oil and natural gas exploration give me a break or else he would piss off all his fraudulent Green movement Communists which is the current base of the Democrat party and some of the RINOS just so you leftists understand you idiots that believe in global warming or as you put it Climate change.
 Here is how the OPED ends "Mr. Obama correctly sees drilling as one element in a multipronged approach that also includes investments in energy efficiency, cleaner cars and alternative fuels.

The conservatives’ assertion that drilling alone is sufficient is not only environmentally irresponsible but the stuff of fantasy."

 The NYT makes my point cleaner cars and the BS about alternative fuels (in other words Green movement BS).No NYT the whole assertion that drilling alone is not environmentally irresponsible is not fantasy its common sense but it is fantasy to you idiots.

 I have some advice for the NYT journalists and OPED Board(one in the same since they cannot differentiate the difference between the news and opinion) learn how to sell papers first then you can attempt to become experts in the oil industry.

Obama's Agenda Belongs In The Outhouse

But as usual the left with the help of The RINOS will spin this good for the media dumb asses out there

Perfect Obama Cartoon

Stupid is as Stupid does

Big Government Is To Blame For Job Losses

Opinion/Editorial

                                                            

       GOP To Blame for Weak Jobs Numbers is what Real Clear Politics has it as on their web site.But the title that the New York Times has it as is "The Square Off Over Jobs" gee I wonder why.
It begins "There’s no solace in the employment report for June, released Friday. The economy added a paltry 80,000 jobs last month, leaving no doubt that the economy is slowing. In the past three months, the economy averaged 75,000 new jobs a month, compared with 226,000 in the prior three months. The jobless rate in June held steady at 8.2 percent, which is down from the recession peak of 10 percent in October 2009 but still very high."
    So how can the GOP (not that I am defending them anymore) be blamed when they only run the U.S.House of Representatives.Who is the Majority in the U.S. Senate? or does the NYT and the rest of the lame stream media forget.
   Could it be because of the BS Stimulus $pending and even the TARP under the last BUSH Administration (which Obama as a US Senator supported along with FORMER Speaker Pelosi).
  It goes on spinning "Who is to blame? How can it bThe question then is why the recovery under Mr. Obama has not been stronger. Part of the answer lies beyond the control of any American politician, including the euro zone crisis and, more recently, the slowdown e fixed?" Here is where the blame game begins.
  "On the campaign trail, President Obama has explained correctly that recoveries from financial crashes are tortured affairs and that it was an achievement to get the economy growing again a mere six months after he took office. For that, he credits the 2009 stimulus he pushed through Congress, a point well supported by public- and private-sector economic analyses. It’s also worth noting that job growth in the current recovery has actually outpaced the job growth following the Bush-era recession in 2001. The recovery is not unusually weak; what is atypical is the length and severity of the recession that Mr. Obama inherited."BBS blame Bush syndrome (with the exception of the aforementioned TARP).Inherited same old BS excuses instead of solutions.
   Here is more BS more blame game "The question then is why the recovery under Mr. Obama has not been stronger. Part of the answer lies beyond the control of any American politician, including the euro zone crisis and, more recently, the slowdown in China. But part is the result of obstructionist Republican politics, including the fiasco in 2011 over raising the debt ceiling, which dented confidence in Congress’s ability to steer the economy."

This NYT OPED originally ran on July 6,2012
 
  

Brent Bozell As To Why Roberts Changed

| Opinion

               

Is anyone surprised that the ink wasn’t dry on Chief Justice John Roberts’ incoherent switcheroo before team Obama was again denying ObamaCare is a tax? Why did he do it?

There is no doubt that the left waged a war on the court’s public image. Just as Obama lectured the justices during his State of the Union address for the Citizens United decision, so Obama and his media minions prepared for this verdict with blatant mob pressure: Side with us or your image is ruined.

For liberal journalists, repeal of ObamaCare was tantamount to a deadly third strike. Strike One was Bush versus Gore, which caused a liberal scream-fest that continues in some quarters to this day. Strike Two was the Citizens United campaign-finance case; in the leftist worldview, all major tipping points of public policy should be controlled by the state.

In the media’s twisted lingo, upholding the Constitution would be “partisan.” Mangling it would be “nonpartisan.” This routine was sickening to watch from beginning to end, especially the way liberal journalists switched on a dime in finding that Roberts had transformed himself from rejectionist tea party villain to savior of the high court.

NBC’s David Gregory earned the blue ribbon for partisan plasticity. Hours before the verdict, he drew the nightmare scenario of an overturned ObamaCare law: “What happens if it is struck down in part or in whole by a 5-to-4 decision? Would that not underscore how dysfunctional our government is ... ? That is a real nightmare scenario, I think, for the political class in this country.”

Got that? The media class informs the political class and the judicial class that either Obama wins or there’s going to be public-relations hell to pay. Then the decision came out.

Within minutes, there was Gregory, finding the same 5-4 score going in Obama’s favor wasn’t dysfunctional after all. It was terrific: “Chief Justice Roberts ... has spoken publicly about how on big controversial decisions, he thinks a 5-4 majority on the court over time undermines the Supreme Court and only fuels the view that our major political institutions are too polarized. He’s taken a big step here.”

It’s a “big step” to sign up with the socialist justices who can’t find a limitation to government anywhere in the Constitution.

Then there was Chris Matthews, whose approach to Roberts went from holding a pitchfork and a torch to holding a bouquet of roses. On the night before the verdict, Matthews told his guests that a fellow Catholic said Roberts “doesn’t want to be the second Roger Taney. Roger Taney, of course, was a Roman Catholic who upheld the Fugitive Slave Law back before the Civil War and was villainized throughout history because of that.”

So overturning ObamaCare is just like returning all the fugitive slaves to their Southern masters. But when Roberts caved to the left, now it was a “bold, defiant, grand decision.”

Someone clearly pressed Roberts to cry “uncle.” He is a traitor to strict constitutionalism, whether he folded to Obama or to his image-manufacturing bullies in the media. The Constitution to him and his liberal friends is simply Play-Doh in the hands of our governing elites.

It looks like when November comes, “We the People” will be the last recourse to keep the Constitution from the shredder.

L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center.

The Declaration of Independence (From Pittsburgh Tribune Review)

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 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 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 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.

Commentary

Both sides of the political spectrum need to read this and understand it as our founders did not as todays politicians want to interpret it