---

Account frozen...

Suspicions about dual citizenship

MARCELA SANCHEZ
THE WASHINGTON POST

October 29, 2005

A year after Samuel Huntington's book "Who Are We?" portrayed Hispanic immigrants as the greatest threat to U.S. national unity, Stanley Renshon has written a book that is likely to once again stir up suspicions toward the foreign-born - particularly those who have gone a step further by becoming naturalized citizens while maintaining citizenship in their countries of origin.

In "The 50 Percent American: Immigration and National Identity in an Age of Terror" (Georgetown University Press), Renshon, a professor of political science at the City University of New York, argues that dual citizens have a "shallower attachment to the American national community."

In Renshon's mind, "the question of American national identity and the strength of our attachments to the American national community are ... in an age of terrorism ... perhaps the most important domestic national issue facing this country."

The danger, Renshon contends, is that dual citizens have been brought up outside the United Sates and their attentions are divided between their adopted home and their countries of origin. According to Renshon, attachment to a nation is patriotism, something which dual citizens critically lack.

What Renshon is really searching for, as was Huntington before him, is a rationale for why immigrants today threaten the long-term national interests and viability of the United States. But to find one, Renshon pursues arguments that defy common sense and reveal a bizarre generalization that all immigrants are potentially terrorists.

The connections that dual citizens maintain to their countries of origin – voting in elections, investing in family and business affairs – are worrisome to Renshon. These connections create conflicts of interest that would be a liability if the United States were ever at war with one of 150 countries that today allow some form of dual citizenship.

Renshon would throw away any positive impact that a naturalized citizen's American experience might have on his land of origin. Never mind that, as President Bush said during his most recent speech about the war on terror, the United States and the world are confronting not a traditional enemy "under a single command" but a loose network of Islamic radicalism that may find temporary bases inside single states. In most cases, states are the best allies in rooting out those terrorists.

Renshon, a psychoanalyst, goes on to argue that dual citizens are unable – without the help of government – to create the emotional connections which are the basis for national attachment. He recommends that government create welcome centers, offer free English classes and improve civic education in schools for the new arrivals.

In other words, immigrants need professional help to make up for their inability to create sufficient attachments to the world in which they live. In Renshon's world, dual citizens sound like potential sociopaths.

Last month, after 15 years of living in this country, I became one of those dual citizens. Now it seems I've gone from being a threatening immigrant to becoming a threatening naturalized citizen. I find it absolutely ridiculous that anyone would suggest that after all these years, my emotional attachments to this country and its people are deficient. True, I may never feel exactly the same as my native-born husband does when he hears "America the Beautiful." But I can say in all honesty that I don't hold any deeper or more committed personal attachments than those I have for the people and the way of life in this country.

During World War I, when U.S. nationalism and suspicion of foreigners had reached new heights, President Woodrow Wilson declared that "any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this republic." German-Americans, the single largest ethnic group in the United States at the time, were particularly suspect. Teaching German was banned in schools; German street names were changed; sauerkraut was even renamed "victory cabbage."

George L. Sprattler, the father of the woman I now call Grandma, was depressed and humiliated. He had come to the United States as a Lutheran missionary from Germany and for nearly 15 years had organized congregations and orchestras in the Pacific Northwest. By 1914 he was a U.S. citizen. Yet his church was closed, he was banned from preaching in German, and required by law to sell Liberty Bonds. Still, two of his sons went on to serve in the U.S. military during World War II, and his daughter became the matriarch to one of the most American of families I've ever known. And I'm proud to be a part of it.

[quote]Suspicions about dual citizenship

MARCELA SANCHEZ
THE WASHINGTON POST

October 29, 2005

A year after Samuel Huntington's book "Who Are We?" portrayed Hispanic immigrants as the greatest threat to U.S. national unity, Stanley Renshon has written a book that is likely to once again stir up suspicions toward the foreign-born - particularly those who have gone a step further by becoming naturalized citizens while maintaining citizenship in their countries of origin.

In "The 50 Percent American: Immigration and National Identity in an Age of Terror" (Georgetown University Press), Renshon, a professor of political science at the City University of New York, argues that dual citizens have a "shallower attachment to the American national community."

In Renshon's mind, "the question of American national identity and the strength of our attachments to the American national community are ... in an age of terrorism ... perhaps the most important domestic national issue facing this country."...

There is, I think, a difference between those who came to these shores in the immigration waves of the early 20th Century and those who immigrate today. The former, sought, on the whole, to integrate into the American mainstream culture as quickly as possible. Those who could not because of their age or (lack of) education watched as their children became totally Americanized in a single generation. Furthermore, this assimilation was the expectation with which immigrants were greeted.

These days, the links to the mother countries are far more readily available than they were then, thus making continuing contact easy and attractive, at least to the first generation. Further, poltiical correctness seems to make it somehow bad to expect assimilation as was the case in the past.

All of that said, the obviously overwrought ideas of the two authors mentioned above merit the skepticism that the reviewer in the Washington Post expressed.
The kids, and/or their kids will be as American as anyone else in time. What exactly that means is the subject of a whole other debate.

---

THE MOTHER OF FOOLS IS ALWAYS PREGNANT

I'M TROLLING FOR FOOLS. THIS MUST BE THE PLACE!

Well, the term of the Grand Jury investigating the "outing" of Valerie Plame Wilson has ended and an indictment has been handed down. I. Lewis Libby is charged with five counts; one count of Obstruction of Justice, two counts of making false statements to the FBI, and two counts of Perjury before the Grand Jury.

I, for one, think that the Special Prosecutor has done an exemplary job so far in his investigation of the leak of Mrs. Wilson's position as a covert CIA agent to the press. During his press conference yesterday (10/28) he was extremely careful to speak only about the matters contained in the indictment. He did not attempt by hints or innuendoes to suggest any other person's name. He turned aside all questions designed to elicit such names, or to speculate on matters other than those in the five counts of the indictment. Furthermore, he was able (seemingly without too much difficulty) to prevent leaks from the grand jury investigation for the entire two years it was in session. This was in marked contrast to the notoriously leaky investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr and his staff.

The indictment itself is a model of clarity and, under the circumstances, brevity. I urge anyone who is interested to download a copy. You can find a pdf copy here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyidict.pdf . Note that the charges against Libby do not include breaking the law against revealing classified information. The reason for this (at least for now) is that the operative word in the law is "intentionally" and proving intent is notoriously difficult. However, since the Grand Jury was impaneled to investigate whether or not the law was broken, Libby's alleged false statements and perjury were effectively an obstruction of justice...the first count of the indictment.

It seems to me that there are at least three outcomes of this indictment:

1. Libby may try to cop a plea to the lesser of the alleged crimes. This would be at the sole discretion of the prosecutor and for reason 3., below, might not be acceptable.

2. Libby may elect to go to trial and attempt to beat some or all of the charges. As it seems Mr. Fitzgerald has ample evidence to prove the charges this could be very risky. If he’s found guilty Libby faces up to 30 years in prison and a fine of $1,000,000.00. Now I don't think he would get anything like this amount of time or fine, still even if he had to do two or three or possibly five years, it would not be a pleasant prospect for someone in Mr. Libby's position. This leads me to my next point.

3. The prosecutor has stated in his press conference that the investigation into the release of Mrs. Wilson's name is still ongoing, and it is always possible to find a sitting Grand Jury that can hand down additional indictments. As anyone who has watched Law and Order or similar shows knows, where a criminal conspiracy is suspected, prosecutor's will often use the threat of probable prison time and/or the promise of leniency to turn (or roll) one alleged felon against others. If Mr. Fitzgerald can succeed in doing this with Mr. Libby, we may in coming days or weeks see additional indictments handed down against other members of the Administration.

We may soon know if Mr. Libby has a sense of self preservation, or if like a good soldier, he is willing to fall on his sword. Stay tuned.

---

THE MOTHER OF FOOLS IS ALWAYS PREGNANT

I'M TROLLING FOR FOOLS. THIS MUST BE THE PLACE!

Oil for Food really was Oil for Fraud

By Richard J. Goldstone

October 30, 2005

On Thursday, the Independent Inquiry Committee submitted its final report to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, documenting the massive manipulation of the Oil for Food Program by Saddam Hussein, diverting $1.8 billion in illicit surcharges and kickbacks from the humanitarian purposes of the Program into the coffers of his regime. This Report on Program Manipulation is the eighth document in a series of committee reports and briefing papers issued since August 2004 on the United Nations Oil for Food Program. It also was presented by the committee to an informal meeting of the General Assembly.

As our Sept. 7 report made clear, these illicit payments were dwarfed beside the illicit amounts filling Saddam Hussein's bank accounts from sources and activities outside the Oil for Food Program. The latter, in fact, were roughly five times (i.e. $10.99 billion) the $1.8 billion we describe in this last report.

The central issues addressed by the committee in all of its reports were:

1. Whether there was mismanagement and maladministration in the execution of the program by the United Nations, its personnel and its agents;

2. Whether any United Nations officials, personnel, or agents engaged in any illicit or corrupt activities in connection with the program;

3. Whether contractors of the United Nations, purchasers of oil, or providers of humanitarian aid engaged in any illicit or corrupt activities in connection with the program; and

4. Whether the accounts of the program were in order.

In conducting its investigation, the committee was conscious of the line it must tread between openness and the need to maintain the integrity of an investigation into very sensitive matters; issues that could put at physical risk witnesses who have come forward and spoken to committee investigators. Other than areas where confidentiality agreements with governments and individuals are in place or the investigative process dictated otherwise, we sought to respond to requests for information from legislators, law enforcement authorities, the public, and the media. After interviews of over 1,100 individuals in more than 20 countries, and after scanning and reviewing some 12 million pages of documentation, the committee believes that it has compiled a comprehensive and objective account of the program.

As far as the United Nations was concerned, the inquiry was highly intrusive. On the instructions of the secretary-general, we had full access to U.N. records and personnel. In many cases, including that of the secretary-general himself, we also had access to private records including those of a financial nature. We received excellent cooperation from a number of countries and their regulatory and law enforcement agencies, including France, Italy and Switzerland. Lebanon and Jordan also have been helpful. We have, as well, had cooperative working arrangements with the office of the Manhattan District Attorney.

In organizing its work, the committee gave priority to the serious allegations of corruption leveled at United Nations officials, contractors and agents. The investigation, therefore, initially concentrated on the procurement practices of the United Nations in awarding major contracts to companies that would be the backbone of the program's infrastructure. This included those engaged to inspect humanitarian goods entering Iraq and oil being exported from Iraq, as well as the financial institution to hold in escrow the oil sale proceeds that funded the humanitarian imports. The committee found that in each of the original contract awards in 1996 for the inspection companies and the escrow bank, procurement rules were disregarded and/or undue political considerations skewed the bidding processes.

This phase of the investigation probed the allegations of corruption surrounding Benon Sevan, the senior United Nations official in overall charge of the program. The committee found that he was guilty of a grievous conflict of interest in soliciting oil allocations from the government of Iraq and that he benefited financially in so doing.

One such contract award had raised questions as to the involvement of the secretary-general as it had been revealed that his son was, at one time, an employee of the company. The committee found no evidence that the secretary-general acted improperly in any way to influence that contract award to Cotecna Inspection SA in 1998. However, it did find his response wanting once he became aware of his son's continuing links with that company.

Having reported on those specific issues through the early part of 2005, the inquiry then focused on the basic issue of the United Nations' performance in administering the program generally. This included the roles of the senior management of the United Nations, especially that of the secretary-general and that of deputy secretary-general, Louise Frechette.

On these topics, the committee found that there was a lack of adequate oversight and supervision of the program and of those administering it. It also found the United Nations structures, especially in the area of financial controls, inadequate for monitoring a program of such size and complexity. Importantly, the committee also found significant shortcomings in the performance of many of the U.N.-related agencies that implemented the program in the three northern governorates of Iraq. Moreover, it found that that there was inadequate coordination among these agencies and significant overcharging to the program of agency costs. On this last point, the committee recommended that the agencies reimburse Iraq up to $50 million in overcharges for administrative and operating costs. In response to action by the United Nations, over $37 million already has been returned for eventual deposit to the Development Fund for Iraq.

The committee investigated allegations of Saddam Hussein's policy of using oil allocations to influence senior officials in a number of countries. Jean-Bernard Merrimee, the former French ambassador to the U.N. and subsequently special adviser to the secretary-general accepted such allocations. In the case of the former secretary-general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali no evidence was found that those charged with implementing the policy ever communicated it to him.

Most importantly, from its investigation, the committee has made a series of recommendations for United Nations reform. They address problems within the secretariat, among member states of the United Nations, and among members of the United Nations family of institutions. Many of the committee's detailed recommendations address administrative weaknesses, especially in the areas of management, auditing, and internal oversight that can be corrected by administrative action within the secretariat. The responsibility for the failures must be shared broadly, starting with member states and the Security Council itself. The program left too much initiative with Saddam Hussein. That basic difficulty was compounded by a failure to clearly define the complex administrative responsibilities, shared between the 661 Committee of the Security Council and the secretariat, and by persistent political differences. The result was that no one seemed clearly in command. Delays in, or evasion of, decision-making were chronic.

There was, as well, a pervasive absence of effective auditing and administrative controls. Weak planning, sorely inadequate funding, and too few professional staff were all characteristic of the process. The absence of truly independent status for the auditing and control functions was a critical deficiency. To address these shortcomings, the committee has made a number of recommendations. Some, particularly in the area of financial controls, arise from the detailed investigation of this aspect of the program and are therefore, perhaps, unique. However, in other significant recommendations, the committee joins with those who have put forward similar thoughts in most recent commentaries and reports on United Nations reform.

The committee believes that strong and effective leadership and management are vital to the success of the United Nations. The United Nations needs strengthening in both, and the committee has made specific suggestions in these areas, as it has with respect to badly needed strengthening of the United Nations conflict-of-interest and financial disclosure regimes.

In conclusion, it is my strong belief that any United Nations program must carry with it a strong sense of international legitimacy. No single nation, or group of nations, can match that potential quality. But if legitimacy is essential to success, that legitimacy, in the end, is dependent upon credibility and confidence.

I would suggest that reforms of U.N. management and financial controls are urgent. Some calls in the past have met with little response from member states and from the secretariat. If the failures that dominated the implementation of the Oil for Food Program do not result in such reforms, then nothing will.

Goldstone is a member of the Volcker Committee that investigated the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food program scandal. He is currently a Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence at the University of San Diego Law School and Eminent Leader in Residence at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice at USD. He is a former justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Well, the term of the Grand Jury investigating the "outing" of Valerie Plame Wilson has ended and an indictment has been handed down. I. Lewis Libby is charged with five counts; one count of Obstruction of Justice, two counts of making false statements to the FBI, and two counts of Perjury before the Grand Jury.

I, for one, think that the Special Prosecutor has done an exemplary job so far in his investigation of the leak of Mrs. Wilson's position as a covert CIA agent to the press. During his press conference yesterday (10/28) he was extremely careful to speak only about the matters contained in the indictment. He did not attempt by hints or innuendoes to suggest any other person's name. He turned aside all questions designed to elicit such names, or to speculate on matters other than those in the five counts of the indictment. Furthermore, he was able (seemingly without too much difficulty) to prevent leaks from the grand jury investigation for the entire two years it was in session. This was in marked contrast to the notoriously leaky investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr and his staff.

The indictment itself is a model of clarity and, under the circumstances, brevity. I urge anyone who is interested to download a copy. You can find a pdf copy here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyidict.pdf . Note that the charges against Libby do not include breaking the law against revealing classified information. The reason for this (at least for now) is that the operative word in the law is "intentionally" and proving intent is notoriously difficult. However, since the Grand Jury was impaneled to investigate whether or not the law was broken, Libby's alleged false statements and perjury were effectively an obstruction of justice...the first count of the indictment.

It seems to me that there are at least three outcomes of this indictment:

1. Libby may try to cop a plea to the lesser of the alleged crimes. This would be at the sole discretion of the prosecutor and for reason 3., below, might not be acceptable.

2. Libby may elect to go to trial and attempt to beat some or all of the charges. As it seems Mr. Fitzgerald has ample evidence to prove the charges this could be very risky. If he’s found guilty Libby faces up to 30 years in prison and a fine of $1,000,000.00. Now I don't think he would get anything like this amount of time or fine, still even if he had to do two or three or possibly five years, it would not be a pleasant prospect for someone in Mr. Libby's position. This leads me to my next point.

3. The prosecutor has stated in his press conference that the investigation into the release of Mrs. Wilson's name is still ongoing, and it is always possible to find a sitting Grand Jury that can hand down additional indictments. As anyone who has watched Law and Order or similar shows knows, where a criminal conspiracy is suspected, prosecutor's will often use the threat of probable prison time and/or the promise of leniency to turn (or roll) one alleged felon against others. If Mr. Fitzgerald can succeed in doing this with Mr. Libby, we may in coming days or weeks see additional indictments handed down against other members of the Administration.

We may soon know if Mr. Libby has a sense of self preservation, or if like a good soldier, he is willing to fall on his sword. Stay tuned.

---

Account frozen...

If you're smart Libby, you'll plea out-
Take a couple years getting your tennis game straight
In some Fed country club jailhouse.
Otherwise your grandkids will never be able to get a gig
With Haliburton
Leaning on a shovel for 1600 bucks a week...cc

Note that the charges against Libby do not include breaking the law against revealing classified information. The reason for this (at least for now) is that the operative word in the law is "intentionally" and proving intent is notoriously difficult. However, since the Grand Jury was impaneled to investigate whether or not the law was broken, Libby's alleged false statements and perjury were effectively an obstruction of justice...the first count of the indictment.

Ah, another Martha Stewart case. She of course, was never charged with insider trading, in fact, none of the others were either.

Note to all. If they come asking, get yer lawyer, whether you did it or not.

Ah, another Martha Stewart case. She of course, was never charged with insider trading, in fact, none of the others were either.

Note to all. If they come asking, get yer lawyer, whether you did it or not.

Even if you are "lawyered up," the lawyer cannot accompany you into the grand jury room.

The US criminal justice system is a complicated organism, and different parts operate under entirely different sets of rules. At the grand jury, there are 23 jurors, the prosecutor, and the current witness. No judge, no lawyers, no discovery process. The prosecution has a tremendous advantage at this phase, because this early in a case it would be silly to require a slam-dunk case to get a proper trial started.

Once the "real" trial starts, the advantage shifts to the defendant. Rules of evidence, rules of order, and (most importantly) the presence of a judge ensure that the prosecution has more than unsubstantiated character assassination before a verdict is handed down.

Overall, the system works well enough to prevent anarchy.

The problem is that corporations, politicians, and other high-profile defendants can be ruined by a mere indictment. The Aurthur Anderson accounting firm was decimated by an indictment... they fact that the firm was found not guilty hasn't really helped (AA didn't do any worse than any other public accounting firm at the time, but it was their client that imploded).

It is hard to recommend any kind of remedy, because not all high-profile defendants explode upon indictment (for example, a number of politicians in both parties have DUI convictions). The prosecutors themselves sometimes try to take political reality into account when deciding whether to bring charges, but this is very uneven.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

The problem is that corporations, politicians, and other high-profile defendants are also convicted.

---

Account frozen...

The problem is that corporations, politicians, and other high-profile defendants are also convicted.

That was my unclear writing.

I was refering to an indictment followed by an exoneration at trial, even if there is obvious excuplatory evidence.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

The end result is going to be a nomination that Groups 2 and 3 can argree on, which Group 4 will despise (the scenario that Rush mentioned).

Looks like this is precisely what happened. Not only is this nominee "obviously" conservative, he had a decision in his past that is going to set the Pro-Choice zealots in the Democratic Party on fire.

I haven't read that particular opinion (about spousal notification before an abortion is performed), so I won't even try to comment on who was right or wrong in that judgement. Such cases typically turn on a small corner of the legislation and not the broad issues that grab headlines. However, the important fact is that Democrats from blue states will be forced to offer vocal opposition despite the fact that Judge Alito obviously posesses the qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

I don't think that Bush is that devious, but there are plenty of politically-minded operatives within the Republican Party who will take advantage of this fight in the upcoming round of elections.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Current CNN poll.

There were several other highly qualified nominees who are not WASPS. Well, maybe he's Catholic?

One the plus side, at least Alito appears to have the necessary judical
qualifications, and is not a personal crony of Bush.

---

Account frozen...

Current CNN poll.

There were several other highly qualified nominees who are not WASPS. Well, maybe he's Catholic?

One the plus side, at least Alito appears to have the necessary judical
qualifications, and is not a personal crony of Bush.

This could be a backlash aimed directly against Democrats who opposed Miers (they only shut up when it became clear that the right-wingers would kill her nomination for them), but I doubt it. The pool of qualified people gets a lot smaller when you have to find someone willing to be raked over the coals in front of a toxic Senate commitee while having issue ads distort his or her record.

Thus, the coarsening of rhetoric in Washington can be said to be having a direct impact on the quality of candidates for the Supreme Court (accepting that at least some measure of background diversity is good for the Supreme Court).

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Even if you are "lawyered up," the lawyer cannot accompany you into the grand jury room.

Yes, you are correct, I spoke in error. Well, not really, but I wasn't referring to the grand jury. Which I should have made clear.

The problem is that corporations, politicians, and other high-profile defendants are also convicted.

Well, yeah, obviously. Sometimes people break laws. Other times, they are scapegoated. Still other times someone needs a conviction on something, you know, to show that they're doing their job.

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

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 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.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .