Wednesday, September 9, 2026

FOTD Sept 9

Freethought of the Day (FOTD) is a daily calendar brought to you courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It highlights names, birthdates, quotes and other historical information of known atheists, agnostics and religious skeptics.

Today, September 9, there are two entries: Leo Tolstoy and Michel de Montaigne.

Leo Tolstoy

On this date in 1828, the great Russian novelist Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy was born as a landed count on his family’s Yasnaya Polyana estate near Tula. After serving as an officer in the Crimean War, his sense of social justice began to surface and he founded 13 schools for peasants after serfdom was abolished in 1861. He had a religious crisis in his 40s that caused him to denounce the powerful and corrupt Orthodox Church. Tolstoy called the church an “impenetrable forest of stupidity” and a “conscious deception that serves as a means for one part of the people to govern the other,” according to biographer Tikhon Polner (Tolstoy and His Wife, 1945).

Tolstoy, in such books as Critique of Dogmatic Theology, wrote that Jesus Christ was human, not divine, and rejected miracles and immortality. In My Confession (1882) he wrote, “If there is no higher reason —and there is none — then my own reason must be the supreme judge of my life.” The books were banned by church censors and Tolstoy was called an “impious infidel.” In 1895 he gave up his property, living as a nature-worshipping peasant, like his main protagonist in War and Peace.

In that novel he wrote, “Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges or beliefs.” As James A. Haught wrote in 2000 Years of Disbelief, “Many people who reject supernatural Christianity nonetheless embrace Christ’s message of compassion. Tolstoy carried this pattern to an extreme. He renounced organized religion and was excommunicated in 1901 by the Russian Orthodox Church — yet he became almost a monk, living in service to others.”

He espoused an ethical and ascetic Christianity. In What Is Religion? (1902), Tolstoy wrote, “One may say with one’s lips: ‘I believe that God is one, and also three’ — but no one can believe it, because the words have no sense.”

In 1862 Tolstoy married Sofia Andreevna Behrs, daughter of a court physician and 16 years his junior. They had 13 children, eight of whom survived childhood. Their later life together has been described as one of the unhappiest in literary history. Sofia was upset about his attempts to reject his wealth, opposed to his teachings she saw as radical and had grown envious of the attention he gave to his Tolstoyan “disciples.”

In 1910 he left home secretly in the dead of night in winter in an apparent attempt to escape her tirades and died of pneumonia a day’s journey from home after collapsing at the Astapovo railway station. “The Last Station,” a 2009 film about his final year, was based on a novel by Jay Parini. Christopher Plummer as Tolstoy and Helen Mirren as Sofia were both nominated for Oscars.

Photo: Tolstoy in a 1901 portrait by Ilya Repin.

“Religious superstition consists in the belief that the sacrifices, often of human lives, made to the imaginary being are essential, and that men may and should be brought to that state of mind by all methods, not excluding violence.”
— Tolstoy, "The Slavery of Our Times" (1890)

Michel de Montaigne (Quote)

“Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians.”
— Michel de Montaigne (1533-92), French philosopher, "Essays" (1580)

stochastic terror

This is an editorial recently published in The Alabama Reflector. I'm reminded of the armed right-wing nut who recently tried to attack Democratic candidate for Senate in Ohio, Dr. Amy Acton. Fortunately he was stopped before he could do any harm. The kind of rhetoric that Britt and Tuberville have been using to describe El-Sayed in Michigan (and Democrats in general, for that matter...uh, Communism anyone?) incites their base to do something like a physical attack. Stochastic terrorism. Trump practices that. A lot. In my opinion, Britt and Tuberville (and Trump) know what they are doing, which makes it even more evil and insidious.

Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville’s rhetoric about Abdul El-Sayed is dangerous

ALLISON BERKOWITZ

I was troubled to recently read comments by Alabama U.S. Sens. Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville about Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, and his supporters. Britt called him a “terrorist sympathizer” and a “jihadist sympathizer” on television. Sen. Tuberville went a step further and posted online that Dr. El-Sayed is a “terrorist” and a “radical Islamist.” These are inflammatory accusations leveled at a physician and public servant who has spent his career trying to make the lives of Americans better.

I have been a fan of Dr. El-Sayed for years, reading his books (“Healing Politics” and “Medicare for All”) and listening to his podcast (“America Dissected.”) He is a family man who went into public health after seeing how broken our health care system is. El-Sayed became an avid advocate for better and more affordable access to health care for Americans. His campaign for the U.S. Senate is centered on “Medicare for All” and reducing corporate influence in government, ideas reflecting what many Alabamians want, too.

Disagreeing with his positions on health care or foreign policy is fair in a democracy. For example, I don’t expect that our U.S. senators will wake up tomorrow supporting universal health care or agreeing with serious criticisms of Israel. But calling him a “jihadist” is not a policy criticism. It uses language that has real, potentially fatal consequences.

That difference matters, especially here in Alabama. We have a small but vibrant Islamic community made up of people who are as American as anyone else and who already navigate suspicion they did nothing to earn. When U.S. senators use words like “jihadist” and “terrorist” to describe a Muslim candidate, it doesn’t stay confined to one race in Michigan. It reinforces the idea that all Muslim Americans are inherently suspect. It puts ordinary Muslim Alabamians at greater risk of harassment or worse.

We have seen how demonizing language aimed at a public figure, or a type of people more broadly, can translate into real hostility, even violence, towards a whole group of private citizens. For example, anti-Muslim hate crimes went up significantly in the lead-up to the 2016 election when Islamophobia was so prevalent at the national level. What’s to say there couldn’t be similar consequences here in Alabama in 2026 due to our senators’ words and attitudes?

Additionally, I’d ask the senators to consider how their language mischaracterizes El-Sayed supporters like myself who simply see the country differently than they do. Sen. Britt said that El-Sayed’s supporters “hate America.” Sen. Tuberville’s rhetoric had a similar tone, only more extreme. As James Baldwin put it, loving this country more than any other in the world is exactly why he insisted on the right to criticize it perpetually. When elected officials frame the deeply American act of dissent as evidence that someone “hates America,” it suggests either a troubling misunderstanding of civics and American history or a desire to exploit that misunderstanding in others.

I don’t expect Sens. Britt and Tuberville to agree with El-Sayed’s politics, and I don’t expect every Alabamian to either. But I do expect the senators representing our state to debate ideas rather than brand their opponents as terrorists. That shouldn’t be controversial. It should be the bare minimum.

ALLISON BERKOWITZ

“Allison Berkowitz is an active legislative advocate focused on social and economic justice. Her professional interests center on political and policy practice, as well as self-care for social workers.”

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Medicare for All

We are a long way from having a national health insurance program in the United States. Practically every other "civilized" or "Western" country in the world has a form of national health insurance. Leaving us in the mud. Currently, 10 states still have not expanded Medicare. All of them are "red states" save purple Wisconsin. And thanks to Trump, millions across the country no longer are even enrolled in the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, or "Obamacare" if you will) because the subsidies have been cut.

Private insurance companies have sunk their capitalistic tentacles deeply into our disorganized healthcare system, and getting them out will be tricky. It's doable, if we have enough civic-minded, and not profit-minded, elected officials. Until the US does something resembling Medicare for All, we cannot claim we are the greatest country in the world. Far from it. Trump seems to be trying his best to make the US one of those "shithole" countries he condemns.

Below is some decent info I came across on Medicare for All. Will we ever get there? Not under Republicans, you can be sure of that.

Medicare for All vs. Single-Payer Healthcare Systems

Medicare for All
Single-payer systems
How it would work
Takeaway

Medicare for All is a proposal for a single-payer healthcare system in the United States. Single-payer systems refer to health insurance programs that are governed by one organization.

Single-payer healthcare systems can be found worldwide. They vary in how they are funded, who is eligible, what benefits they offer, and more.

Medicare for All is a proposal to create a single-payer healthcare system in the United States.

This article examines how single-payer systems work and how Medicare for All stacks up as a proposed health insurance option in the United States.

What is Medicare for All?

If passed, Medicare for All will be a tax-funded, single-payer health insurance program that would provide healthcare coverage to every person in America.

The Medicare for All proposal would be an expansion of Medicare, the health insurance program that covers Americans age 65 and older. Medicare is currently broken into different parts:

Part A
Part B
Part C (Medicare Advantage)
Part D

There is also Medicare supplement insurance, also known as Medigap. Each part of Medicare provides different forms of healthcare coverage.

Together, Medicare Part A and Part B are what’s known as Original Medicare. Part A covers inpatient care, while Part B covers outpatient services.

Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage, covers everything under Medicare Parts A and B, as well as extras, such as:

prescription drugs
dental
vision
hearing services

Some Medicare Advantage plans also cover fitness and meal delivery services.

Medicare Part D and Medigap are both add-ons for Original Medicare.

Medicare Part D is prescription drug coverage, which helps cover the cost of your medications.
Medigap is supplemental Medicare insurance that helps cover some of the costs associated with your Medicare plan, like copays and deductibles.

Medicare for All expansion

Expanding Medicare to Medicare for All would involve:

providing coverage for all individuals, regardless of age or health status
offering Original Medicare coverage, including inpatient and outpatient medical insurance
adding additional coverage, such as reproductive, maternity, and pediatric care
lowering prescription drug prices and offering more choices for prescription drugs

Medicare for All would also change the way healthcare services are paid for. With Medicare, you are responsible for paying:

deductibles
premiums
coinsurance
copays

You must pay these fees to stay enrolled in your Medicare plan and receive coverage.

Under Medicare for All, there would be no monthly premiums or yearly deductibles. You would owe nothing at the time of your services. Instead, your healthcare plan would be prepaid through taxes and contributions.

What is a single-payer system?

Medicare for All is only one type of single-payer system. A variety of single-payer healthcare systems are currently in use around the world in countries such as Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, Australia, Sweden, and others.

The overall idea behind a single-payer healthcare system is that one group is responsible for collecting and distributing funds to provide healthcare services to the entire population.

However, there is no single definition of a single-payer system, and there are different ways that a healthcare system like this can be organized.

In a 2017 study Trusted Source, 25 different proposals for a single-payer healthcare system were analyzed. The researchers found that the common healthcare functions included:

revenue and contributions
eligible population
provider payment
covered benefits
eligible providers

Single-payer functioning

Further, there were differing options about how each of these functions would be handled under a single-payer system.

For example:

Collection of funds, or revenue, could come from federal funds, taxes, or premiums.
Pooling of funds, or eligible population, could be based on an individual’s residency.
Allocation of funds, or provider payment, could be population-based, fee-for-service, or global budget.

Single-payer benefits

Generally, when it comes to covered benefits, all single-payer healthcare systems aim to provide coverage for essential health benefits. These benefits include:

inpatient and outpatient medical services
preventive and wellness services
mental health services
prenatal, maternity, newborn, and pediatric services
rehabilitation and substance misuse services

Switching to a single-payer healthcare system would likely affect the current government-funded healthcare options, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Some proposals, like Medicare for All, call for an expansion of these programs. Other proposals call for the programs we have to be discontinued in favor of a replacement option in which everyone can enroll.

Medicare for All as a single-payer system

Here’s how Medicare for All would function as a single-payer healthcare system:

Revenue and contributions. Medicare for All would be funded through income tax increases, premiums, and contributions.
Eligible population. All residents of the United States, regardless of age or health status, would be eligible for health coverage under Medicare for All.
Provider payment. Services administered by Medicare for All providers would be paid for on a fee-for-service basis using a fee schedule.
Covered benefits. Medicare for All would cover comprehensive health benefits, including any services medically necessary to diagnose, treat, or manage a condition.
Eligible providers. All providers under Medicare for All must follow national minimum standards and the rules and regulations set by the Act.

The Medicare for All program follows the “true” single-payer system model, in which public health insurance is run by the government and funded by taxes. It would be provided to all Americans, without cost-sharing or up-front fees, and without the competition of private insurance plans.

The takeaway

While there are multiple single-payer proposals on the table for healthcare in the United States, Medicare for All is the most widely known and supported.

As a single-payer program, Medicare for All would provide comprehensive healthcare benefits to all people in the U.S. at no up-front cost.

It would be primarily tax-funded, use a fee schedule for provider payments, and cover all essential health benefits.

The information on this website may assist you in making personal decisions about insurance, but it is not intended to provide advice regarding the purchase or use of any insurance or insurance products. Healthline Media does not transact the business of insurance in any manner and is not licensed as an insurance company or producer in any U.S. jurisdiction. Healthline Media does not recommend or endorse any third parties that may transact the business of insurance.

Source

Monday, September 7, 2026

Milo

John Fugelsang with another good one. I like John so much I probably should subscribe to his Substack. Problem is, there are so many good writers out there, I'm not sure I have that much money. Perhaps authoritarians bring out the best writers in opposition, which would be one of the few "good" things about authoritarians.

You all know Milo Yiannopoulos: far-right provocateur, professional edgelord, MAGA cheerleader, human comment section, and longtime fan of other people getting crushed by the boot of the state.

And, as you’ve probably heard, this week Milo finally discovered what every student of authoritarianism eventually learns:

The boot doesn’t care who cheered when it was kicking somebody else.

The machinery might terrorize and abuse entire groups of people the authoritarian fanboys despise, but that doesn’t mean the machine loves its cheering fanboys.

It just hasn’t gotten around to them yet.

Here’s one of Milo’s greatest hits:

Oh dear.

He built his career around malice and provocation, attacking feminists, trans people, Muslims, folks who believe that Black lives matter, and even Leslie Jones.

Yes, really. The Anti-Defamation League cited Yiannopoulos as the instigator of the 2016 Ghostbusters harassment campaign, which included racist comparisons to apes, because of course it did. Twitter banned him in July 2016, and what kind of deranged racist would ever let him back?

And that was before he worked for Kanye West; along with other unpleasant matters we don’t need to mention here.

But in recent years, Milo had become rabidly enthusiastic about harsh immigration enforcement. Because like many, he’d been taught to resent the undocumented labor force that helps prop up this country’s economy.

Keep in mind, these bottom-of-the-societal-ladder “illegals” our MAGA friends have been groomed to hate are predominantly Christian; and exploited by white employers, who the MAGA folk haven’t been groomed to resent.

So Milo wanted ICE checkpoints at gas stations, grocery stores, strip malls, government buildings and random street corners. He wanted to see people who couldn’t prove their status on the spot deported, with no due process, on the spot.

But then, in a plot twist no one could have foreseen - except anyone with a vague understanding of how these movements work - Milo discovered the exciting interactive feature all strongman regimes eventually roll out:

“Hey, now try it on yourself!”

And so, verily, the guy who wanted immediate deportation for anyone in the country illegally, was himself found to be in the country illegally.

Apparently Milo had overstayed his visa, missed an immigration hearing, and earned the enmity of Close Presidential Advisor and Capering Racist Loon Laura Loomer; who outed the influencer to ICE. Or so we’ve heard.

Milo was briefly detained, and immediately deported back to the UK.

This is what modern political scientists call “The Finding Out Part.”

Which Brings Us To The Point.

Milo, like so many before, seems to have believed that old authoritarian bargain: “Just aim the jackboot at someone else, and then the jackboot will always remember that you’re one of the loyal ones.”

But that’s not how it ever really works, is it? You can be the loudest braying, frothing cheerleader for the machinery; you can demand that it humiliate migrants, terrorize communities, tear families apart and make an example of the bad people.

Until the day comes when somebody else decides that the example should be you.

This is the part we miss when folks talk about fascism as though it just means “really mean government.” Fascism isn’t merely a government being cruel to people. It’s a system that requires an ever-expanding list of people who can be deemed expendable, scapegoat-able, and disposable.

I mean, we know the pattern.

First it’s the obvious types, those they can easily smear as “outsiders:” immigrants, refugees, religious minorities, nonwhite people, queer people, political dissidents.

Then it’s the journalists, then the academics; and then the activists.

And then it tends to be the insufficiently enthusiastic members of your own movement.

Then it’s usually the educated members of your own movement who like to bring up history, science or objective morality.

And then it’s the people on your own side who maybe didn’t clap loudly enough.

And eventually, if you’ve really worked to build another shitty system based on loyalty, finger-pointing and collective punishment, somebody you offended off along the way may decide that you’re no longer sufficiently useful.

Congratulations. You’re the “other” now.

And the worst part is, when they do come for you, the only people who’ll be standing up for your human dignity and due process rights are those filthy woke liberals.

You don’t make authoritarianism safe by making yourself useful to it.

It’s yet another wake up call that MAGA guys will sleep through, but it’s still true: You don’t get a lifetime exemption because you were an early-bird fan of persecution. There is no Frequent-Fascist Card that’ll save you.

If your whole movement is built around defining who counts as “one of us,” don’t be surprised to one day find yourself crying out “But I’m one of you!”

That category can change overnight. Today you’re the useful propagandist, laughing as they drag brown people from their cars. And tomorrow, somebody’s reading your name off a list.

The boot doesn’t care how good you used to lick it.

That’s the great scam of authoritarian politics; and you can see it on FOX News almost every night: it convinces ordinary people that cruelty is power - and also acceptable - because, for the moment, someone else is getting hurt.

You can watch the raid, see the arrest, laugh at the weeping families at the deportation, and tell yourself “Good. That’s them. The bad ones who deserve it.”

And then - well, nothing actually gets better, does it?

Your pay doesn’t go up; your rent doesn’t go down. Your healthcare is still crap, the town hasn’t become magically more prosperous, and none of this feels like dignity.

But hey - somebody you were told to hate is suffering; and corrosive smirking Cro-Magnon oafs like Jesse Watters tell you to call that “progress.”

And then, when the regime still fails to deliver on all that paradise it promised, it soon needs another villain; and another, and another.

The World's Least Fun Civics Course

And not for nothing, but it’s also quite interesting that this caucasian deemed “an illegal” doesn’t get sent to an El Salvador gulag; or thrown into a camp for months; the very-white Milo was swiftly deported back to the UK.

That doesn’t mean the regime is being merciful; it just proves the machine operates differently depending on who’s caught in it.

Milo was deported back to the country he came from, not sent to a third-party nation. The system he championed has been demonstrably crueler to people with greater melanin.

But this doesn’t make Milo a hero; and the people operating the machine haven’t become ironically funny because they turned it at one of their own; even if it was some insufferable racist twink that you and I don’t like. There really are no good guys in this story.

But the answer isn’t to build a smarter jackboot that only crushes people you don’t like. The answer is to stop building and supporting jackboots.

Because once you’ve created and blessed a system that says “We can do this to them because they’re the wrong kind of people,” you have already created the system for someone else to decide you’re the wrong kind of person.

John Fugelsang on Substack

Sunday, September 6, 2026

sales pitch

Here is another guest post from a friend of mine. He has bought a house in Spain and will be moving there full-time in the near future. I am jealous because I am stuck here in deep South Texas with this unbearable heat 9 months out of the year.

“The weirdest thing about leaving America is realizing how much of America is just a sales pitch.

You spend your whole life hearing “greatest country on Earth,” then you go overseas and see clean trains, safer streets, affordable medicine, cities where people can walk without playing Frogger with an SUV, and workers who take vacations without acting like they committed treason.

And then you come home.

You come home to potholes, medical debt, school shooting drills, $17 airport sandwiches, people living in tents under highways, politicians wearing flag pins (or worse, gun pins) while doing absolutely nothing for the people standing in food bank lines, and billionaires being treated like they’re the fragile ones.

And somehow we’re all supposed to stand there, hand over heart, and pretend this is normal.

I don’t hate America. I hate what America has been taught to tolerate.

I hate that we call basic things “radical.” Healthcare? Radical. Paid leave? Radical. Clean air? Radical. Kids not getting shot in math class? Somehow political.

America has incredible people. That’s the tragedy. The people are better than the system they’ve been forced to defend.

So no, I’m not going to call America the greatest country on Earth just because it has the best marketing department.

Real patriotism isn’t pretending the country is perfect.

Real patriotism is being angry that it isn’t.”

Saturday, September 5, 2026

Declaration

Every now and then it's good to re-read some of the founding documents of our nation. Lord knows Donald Trump has never read the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution itself, and certainly not the Bible. This is not to say that the Bible is one of this nation's founding documents, no matter how many Guardians of Pedophiles (GOPers) say that it is. It's rather fascinating to see so many so-called Christians on the right that act in opposition to the Bible, while they wear it on their sleeves. Hypo-Christians, I call them.

So here is the Declaration of Independence. Have our cowardly conservatives ever even read the Declaration? These GOPers act like they've never even read the Constitution, allowing Trump to walk all over them.

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 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.

Georgia

Button Gwinnett

Lyman Hall

George Walton

North Carolina

William Hooper

Joseph Hewes

John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

Thomas Lynch, Jr.