Declaration of Independence - Amazing piece of writing

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
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 & 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.

Prop 8 Ruling

Reactions of some of the Gubernatorial candidates to the State Supreme Court's ruling upholding Prop. 8.

Democratic Candidates

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom -- "California at its best is a beacon of equal rights and equal opportunities. If we want to prosper together, we must respect each other. That's why we must resolve to overturn this decision. Let this work start today." Source: San Jose Mercury News

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- “We’re going into every neighborhood, every city. We’re going into every institution to have this conversation about the right of my first cousin John to have a family. The right of men and women who only want one thing — the right to love, the right to a family — something so basic to all of us.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com

I did not find a quote by Atty. General Jerry Brown, however according to George Will's Jan. 15th, 2009 column in the Washington Post, Brown's office filed a 111-page brief asking the state Supreme Court to declare the constitutional amendment unconstitutional. He favors same-sex marriages and says the amendment violates Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution, which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other things, liberty, happiness and privacy.

Republican Candidates

Steve Poizner, state insurance commissioner and Republican gubernatorial candidate:“The California Supreme Court took the appropriate action today in upholding the will of the people by affirming Proposition 8. The people of California have spoken. They voted decisively that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That is also my personal view.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com

Meg Whitman, Republican gubernatorial candidate:“I believe the California State Supreme Court made the right decision. Last November, the people of California passed Proposition 8, and today the court upheld their decision. This simple yet powerful fact is the foundation of our democracy. Regardless of one’s position on the measure, this ruling gives people confidence that their vote matters and can make a difference.’’ Source: LAIndependent.com

Republican candidate Tom Campbell was also missing from the search results when I looked for quotes on the ruling, and there is no mention of the ruling on Campbell's website, but I did find the following pre-election discussion as to why he felt Republicans should oppose Prop. 8: "...I will be voting No on Proposition 8. Same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Californians in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. Californians come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's made our state great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for California. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.

We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It's easy to forget those things, but it wasn't all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law......Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party's and our state's reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8." Source: Reason.com

Do you agree with your candidate's take?

Heads - You Lose!

After about an hour or so of listening to the residents of Sierra Madre who had come down to participate in the democratic process, making often impassioned speeches stating the reasons why they thought our next mayor should be Council Member Joe Mosca or Mayor Pro Tem Maryann MacGillivray, Council Member Don Watts ultimately decided that neither the opinions of the electorate nor the democratic process would have the final say in selecting the mayor. Watts, the self-acknowledged swing vote on the decision, told the people of Sierra Madre that he had made his choice based on the flip of a lucky nickel that he has had for 42 years, since he found it under the bed he slept on above a torpedo while serving in the Navy. The coin toss came up heads, and Watts said that in a previous conversation he had asked Mosca whether he wanted to be heads or tails. Mosca had replied tails. So Watts voted for MacGillivray as Mayor, along with MacGillivray and outgoing Mayor Kurt Zimmerman. Mayor MacGillivray then nominated the coin-tossing Councilman to be our Mayor Pro Tem, and the Council voted unanimously to make Watts the City's second in command elected official. No, this is not April fools. It's the current state of Sierra Madre politics.

Santa Anita Park to Host Chamber Breakfast Mixer, Facility Tour

The Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce April Mixer will be held at Santa Anita Park in the Baldwin Conference room on Thursday, April 9th at 7:30am. The Baldwin Conference room includes views of morning workouts which will be taking place at the same time. Attendees will have a chance to observe some of the horses at the track being put through their paces as they enjoy the continental breakfast provided by Santa Anita Park.

Guests should enter off Baldwin Ave. at Gate 8, and follow the signs that will lead the way to the mixer. Gate 8 will be the only accessible entry into the park at that hour of the morning, so it is critical that guests use that entrance.

Sierra Madre’s 2007 Citizen of the Year Pete Siberell is the invited guest speaker. Siberell also sits on the Sierra Madre Library Board of Trustees, is Chairman of the Mt. Wilson Trail Race Committee, and serves as president of the Sierra Madre Little League. Outside Sierra Madre, Siberell is on the Board of Directors for the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce, and is involved with the Methodist Hospital Foundation and the Arcadia Chapter of the Red Cross.

In addition to Siberell, if work schedules allow, Santa Anita horsemen may also stop by. Following the breakfast, Santa Anita Special Event Coordinator Elizabeth Booth will lead interested mixer attendees on a tour of the facility that will last about half an hour. The mixer will end at 9pm, with the facility tour to begin at that time.

Cost to attend the mixer is $10 for Chamber members, $15 for non-members. A business card drawing will be held featuring prizes donated by Chamber members.

Public works open house and SIerra Madre Social going On at city yard right now through noon. Sent from field via cellular phone.

City Council Passes Amendment to Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking in Certain Places

After nearly three hours of discussion, most of it by proponents and opponents during the community comment portion of the decision making process, City Council added the following words to the City's ordinance that prohibits smoking in certain places: "No person shall smoke in any part of any restaurant, bar, cafe, deli or other public place where food or beverage is sold, served or offered for sale, or in any outdoor dining area or patios serving said establishment."

More than three dozen people stepped to the microphone to voice their opinion, the majority of them asking Council to pass the ordinance. In the end, the Council voted to pass the amendment, calling for a ninety-day education/outreach period during which no penalties will be imposed. At the end of the ninety-day period, staff will come back to Council with their recommendations as to whether they need more time for the outreach program, or changes to the amendment (i.e., is a buffer zone needed around the dining areas, etc.).

Interesting to note that not one of the owners of the restaurants that will be most affected by the amendment spoke on the issue, and from my vantage point in the Council Chambers, there appeared to be only one restaurant owner in attendance. There was an overflow crowd spilling into the foyer of the Chambers, much of which I could not see, so there may have been others in attendance.

Letter to the Editor

I received a letter to the editor today in regards to the smoking restriction on tonight's City Council Agenda. The letter writer is unable to access my blog for some reason, and asked that I post her letter on the blog for her while she tries to figure out what is stopping her from posting herself. Unfortunately, this means that unless she figures out what the issue is, she may not be able to respond to any comments you have, but who knows, maybe she'll figure it out. Here's her (rather provocative) letter:

Re: Proposed Sierra Madre Outdoor Patio Smoking Ban

The proposed outdoor patio smoking ban is not a grassroots effort by Sierra Madre stroller moms: it is part of a statewide step by step progressive ban program funded by taxpayer money disbursed by the California Tobacco Control Program and organized by the California Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing (www.center4tobaccopolicy.org), a political branch of the American Lung Association. Go to that website, click on "Community Organizing" and you will see how they manipulate your stroller moms, your community, and your city council.

Go to talc.phi.org, click on "Secondhand Smoke", click on "Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Ordinance" and you will find your city's smoking ordinance already written and ready to stick under your councilmen's noses for their automatic signature. TALC is funded by taxpayer money disbursed by the California Tobacco Control Program.
If people are taught to hate a minority, any lie about that minority will be believed and any law can be enacted against that minority. In "California Tobacco Control Update 2006", the California Tobacco Control Program states that their goal is "A Tobacco Free California". It states that "California's strategy is to create a social milieu and legal climate in which tobacco use is regarded as unacceptable -- to denormalize smoking and other tobacco use." In plain speech this means that the California Tobacco Program proposes to teach the people of California to regard the smoker a threat to society and to make him a despised pariah. This was the strategy used by the German National Socialist Party against the Jews in the 1930's: it is the strategy the California Tobacco Control Program uses today against California citizens.

Their lies are too numerous for me to list and quote refuting experts here. Take only one "There is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke".

Smoke is smoke. Tobacco isn't magic. It is just another organic material. All organic combustion, like that from cigarettes, campfires, charcoal braziers and fireplaces, generates over 4,000 chemicals, including toxic compounds and carcinogens. The smoke from your picnic area fireplaces contains carbon monoxide, methane, acrolein, benzene, tolulene, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, lead ... the whole scare mongering list you have been given for tobacco smoke. In addition, the EPA estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from wood smoke (I assume because wood is a dense solid) is twelve times greater than that from an equal volume of second hand tobacco smoke (www.burningissues.org).
If there is no safe level of second hand tobacco smoke, then there is likewise no safe level of smoke from your fireplaces, your campfires, your candles, your incense burners, because it is all organic smoke and contains the same array of toxic compounds and carcinogens. Do your little girls keel over dead from toasting marshmallows?
Why do you love the scent of smoke from a neighbor's fireplace in winter, yet complain that aromatic tobacco smoke stinks? Because you have been carefully taught. With tax funded propaganda, Californians could be taught to hate butterflies.

J. Sidney Sullivan
La Mesa, CA